to God And so Faith is below Repentance as a means of it 204. By this the question whether Faith or Repentance be first may partly be resolved and partly cast out as founded in confusion As they are both one thing neither can be first any otherwise than the same Motus ut a termino a quo ut ad terminum ad quem But as they signifie divers things they have each of them divâ—râ— acts and in respect of each are before each other The Assenting act of Faith in general must needs be always before Repentance as it is an Act of the Will But the consenting Act of faith is also part of Repentance and must folow that part of Repentance which is a change of the understanding But whether the Repentance as towards God or Faith in Christ be first or Love to God and Faith in Christ I have discussed as accurately as I can in my Christian Directory Par 1. cap. 3. pag. 182. and therefore thither refer the Reader 205. And how Faith and Love differ I have there also opened and therefore shall now only say that Faith as it signifieth meet How Faith and Love differ Assent differeth from Love as the act of the Intellect from Volition And Love formally taken presupposeth the Assent and doth not contain it But Faith taken largely in the sence of the Baptismal Covenant containeth in it Consent which is the Wills Volition and therefore must needs have some initial Love in it as it acteth iâ— Desire This Faith in God hath some Desire and Volition of God and Faith in Christ which is the Souls Practical Affiance in him hath some Love to Christ in it But the denomination is not from the same ratio formalis in each It is eminently called Faith when giving up our Souls to Christ to be saved in practical Affiance is the great work of the Soul though it have something of Love essential to it And it is eminently called Love morally when the Complacency of the Soul in Christ thus trusted and in God our end is the great work or business of the Soul 206. This Holy Love as a fixed habit and employment of the Soul and our Relation to the Holy Ghost to work it in us is it that is promised and Given quoad jus in the Baptismal Covenant of which Faith though it have somewhat of actual Love or Volition in it is the antecedent condition which also I have so fully opened as afore cited that I refer the Reader to it for this also And somewhat was said of it before SECT XIII Of the degrees of Pardon or Justification 207. Some men lest they should yield that Justification is not one perfect finished act done but once do feign that it is only the first act of Faith by which a man is justified Indeed it is only the first act by which he â—s changed from an unrighteous to a righteous state But to think that therefore we are never after justified by Faith and so have no actually justifying Faith all our lives but for one instant only is fitter for a Dreamer than a theological Discourser 208. Our first constitutive Justification being in its nature a right to â—mpunity and to Life or Glory * * * â—â—â—â— tells us that 〈…〉 which 〈…〉 by Regeâ—â—ra â—â— and Just â—â—â—â— on â—uâ— what they mean by Râ—â—nission they cannot tell themselves as a â—oresaid Pardon of the guâ—â— they mean not or else they mean several things in one word is a Relation which must be continued to the end and therefore must have the true causes and condition continued and would cease if any of them ceased 209. As to the question therefore whether Justification be lossable and â—ardon reversible I answer that the grant of them in the Covenant is unalterable But mans will in it self is mutable and if he should cease believing by Apostacy and the condition fail he would lose his Right and be unjustified and unpardoned without any change in God But that a man doth not so de facto is to be ascribed to Election and special Grace of which afterward 210. Though all our past sins are pardoned at our first Faith or Conversion or as the Ancients speak in Baptism yet it is most certain that Pardon or Justification is not perfect at first no nor on this side death And the saying of many that Justification is perfect at first and Sanctification only by degrees is a palpable error as I have else-where oft shewed For that is not perfect 1. Which is not continued and brought on to its end but upon continued conditions and diligent use of means to the â—ast * * * Neque enim peccati sui veniam impetravit Adam ut a morte temporali immunis esset Twiss contr Corvin pag. 343. col 2. 2. Which leaveth many penalties unremoved which have further means to be used for their removal and further Right to it to be obtained To have more and more Grace and less and less Sin and to have â—earer communion with God are blessings as to the degrees which we must by degrees attain a further Right to and the privation of them are â—ore penalties to be removed 3. We have new sins to be pardoned every day 4. Our remaining Corruption is such as needeth a continued Pardon till it be perfectly done away 5. The Day of Judgment is not come for which the most perfect Justification is reserved SECT XIV Of Justification by Sentence of the Judge 211. The second sort of Justification which is by Sentence is done by Christ as Judge and so is an act of his Kingly Office 212. Therefore were it true as it is not that justifying Faith were only the receiving or believing in Christ as a Justifier of us it would not be a believing in him in his Priestly Office only but in act For he merited our Justification as a humbled Servant and a Sacrifice He giveth it us in Right by his Covenant or Law of Grace as King and Benefactor He promulgateth it as Prophet He passeth the Sentences as King and Judge He executively taketh off the penalty and glorifieth us as King and Benefactor There is no Justification by a partial Faith 213. Though the estimation of a man as just called the Sententiâ— judicis concepta as distinct from the sententia prolata be said to be â—â— immanet act of God and therefore from eternity yet it is a mistake For though it be not transient effectivè and do nihil efficere ad extra yeâ— it is transient objectivè and doth presuppose the existence of the qualified Object For though Gods Knowledge and Will in genere or as such are his eternal Essence yet Gods Knowledge and Love of John or Peter â—â— Believers are terms which signifie not his Essence as such but as transâ—â— and terminated on those existent persons relatively So that the extrinâ—â—cal denomination from the existent Object is temporary as it is 214.
sort of grace We may presume of many things as received from our Teachers but it is hard to prove that Adam the next moment after his sin was totally deprived of all degrees of love to God and goodness and so was privatively as bad as Devils or that all mankind are naturally so Though I believe that it was of grace even Gods first pardoning act as our Redeemer not so totally to execute the Law nor take away his grace and leave man to the utmost penalty of his sin but to keep nature from being as bad as else it would have been But sure Man is Man still and not a Devil And I speak with few or none that seem not to have some liking of God and goodness or Justice as such though they love not God or goodness as contrary to their fleshly lusts nor love God as their Sanctifier and Ultimate End And thus the Carnal Mind is Enmity to God being not subject to his Law though this be consistent with loving him secundum quid IV. I believe him that there is a faith such as the Devils which may be without Justification both in habit and act But that the same Faith which after justifieth can be many years Habitually before Justification that is Sanctification as he meaneth it I believe not Seeing God hath promised that all that believe thus shall be justified and have his Spirit V. Jansenius seems to me to set too light by Habitual Grace as if it were some common thing in comparison of the Act Whereas I take a Habit of love to God to differ from an act either as a Spring or Rivolet from a drop or as Honesty from an honest act or Learning from a learned exercise or as a fixed friendly Inclination which is like to Nature differeth from a friendly action and to be more excellent than a particular act XVIII His judgement of the Matter of the Reward that it is but God himself seen and perfectly loved for himself is of great use But yet it is both lawful and ex individuationis principiis ex natura humana necessary that we take and desire this as our own felicity and so under God intend our selves And quoad rationem praemii it is the Reward of a Rewardable state or work and therefore of the free act of a creature not meerly necessitated It may be a gift without Respect to our Liberty and Obedience but not a reward But it is both a gift and a Reward XIX That Fear and its effects are good and yet not of Christs grace that they are of Gods Spirit but not the Spirit given by Christ but the grace of some other Providence All this I take for unsound and injurious to Christ and grace Where doth the Scripture tell us since the fall of any grace given to the World but by the Redeemer who is Head over all things to his Church If you say that God can give men the grace to fear him and depart from evil without a Saviour or Mediator how can you prove that he may not do so by the rest Either he giveth this grace as Rector according to his Laws or not If not then on the same reason you may feign that most men are not his subject nor under any Law of God and so sin not nor are punishable If yea then it is according to the Law of Innocency or of Grace For if Moses Law as Jewish be called a third it is nothing to our case If it be by a Law of grace it is Christs Law either of the first Edition called the Promise or of the second called the Gospel The Spirit and grace in various measures given by both are of Christ It 's a dangerous assertion that there is any yea so much grace which is not Christs It prejudiceth me against Jansenius's Opinion that it should cast him on such absurdities as to deny so much of the grace of Christ while he pretendeth to honour it and to set up such a feigned way and sort of grace without a Saviour and yet speak so hardly of the Pelagians as he doth for wronging grace 2. As Fear is one of mans natural passions though but subservient to love so the sanctifying of it is one part of the Work of Christs Spirit 3. I am sure Christ himself commandeth Fear Luke 12. 4 5. Heb. 4. 1. 12. 28 29. passim And is it our own Legal Righteousness to obey the commands of Christ Indeed if Fear were all or had no conjunct hope and love it would be Legal and shew the Spirit of bondage from which Christ delivereth us by the Spirit of Power and Love and a sound mind which are the fruits of the Spirit of Adoption For Moses Law separated by the Infidel Jews from the Law of Grace or Promise of a Justifying Mediator could have no better effects than Fear But Abraham that believed and foresaw Christs day rejoyced in that Faith and yet had a Law of obedience which had its penalty and so hath the Law of Grace which we obey XX. Of Free-will I have said enough before Natural Liberty as distinct from the Moral freedom from sin and ill disposition is sure more than meer Voluntariness And I think if God gave Satan or man power to take away from a Saint all his Habitual and Actual love of God and goodness whilest antecedently the person did hate such a change and pray against it by making him willing of evil and making a Devil of him remedilesly he would take away or cross the Natural as well as the Moral Liberty of his will though it were Willingness that were caused If any think otherwise remember that it is but de nomine for de re we are agreed that such a change would be our great misery XXI I take it to be the commendation of Jansenius that he renounceth the Dominicans Physical Efficient Predetermining Premotion as naturally necessary to all actions natural and free But his habitation converse and worldly interest tempted him factiously to calumniate Calvin lest he himself should become odious with his own party and so miss of his expected success which hath prevailed also with Gibieuf Arnoldus and most other Papists to do the like when they differ from their Brethren XXII He well saith that Permission of the first sin is no effect of Reprobation But his ordination of Gods acts into this Before and that After and so his differencing the Election of Angels and men I fear hath somewhat in it presumptuous and unproved In conclusion I much mislike in Jansenius 1. His contempt of the Sacred Scriptures as being not properly Christs Laws but some odd occasional Writings his Laws being only in the heart and tradition 2. His slighting of Habitual Grace comparatively which yet is indeed Christs Law and Gods Image in the heart 3. His â—eigning a new or odd sort of grace fear which is none of the grace of Christ no not preparatory to his higher
faith mentioned so oft in Scripture that is Upon and by believing we are first made just by free-given pardon and right to life and true sanctification with it and we are sentenced just because so first made just But this is not without our Faith and Repentance 2. And that Faith and Repentance are a Righteousness Evangelical that is a performance of the conditions on which the Covenant of Grace doth freely give us right to Christ pardon and life and so are the Constitutive causes of that subordinate Justification Lib. But your subordinate Righteousness hath no hand in our Justification P. This is but singing over the old Song by one that will not consider what is answered Have you thought on all the Texts even now cited Hath faith no hand in our Justification Hath the performance of a Condition and the Moral Disposition of the Receiver no hand in the Reception of a Gift What think you is the meaning of Christs words Matth. 12. By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned What meaneth St. James that a man is justified by works and not by faith only Are men justified by that which hath no hand in their Justification Lib. Christ meaneth before men and so doth James and not before God P. This is notoriously false as contrary to the plain Text Christ speaketh of the Account to be given of our words in the day of Judgement vers 36. And James speaketh of that which men are saved by vers 14. and that Justification which Abraham had and that in an instance where Man did not justifie him and of that which was faiths life and perfection vers 17 22. and of Gods imputing faith for righteousness as to a friend of God vers 23. And is this nothing but Justification before men Lib. This is not the justifying of the man but of his faith P. 1. You contradict the Text which saith Abraham Rahab A man is justified by Works 2. You contradict your self For if the faith be justified the man is justified to be a true believer For how could a man that fulfilled the Law as Christ and Angels did be justified but by justifying his actions And how can he that fulfilleth the Gospel conditions be justified in that point but by justifying that he fulfilled them Lib. At least I may say that this is not the great and notable Justification which is only by Christs Righteousness P. We are not contending for its preheminence but its truth and necessity in a subordinate place Indeed we have one Justification by our Judges sentence which hath many parts and causes God as Donor is one cause and God as Judge another And Christ as meriting is the only meritorious cause of the Justifying Gift and Covenant and Christ as Intercessor another cause and Christ as Judge another And our Righteousness as it is our Right to Impunity and life another and our faith and Repentance are conditions All this is sure Lib. But the Justification by faith is our Universal Justification and that can be only by Christs Righteousness And we are not to trust to a Righteousness mixt of Christs and ours nor doth Christs Righteousness need to be patcht up with our menstruous rags P. 1. No question but Christs Righteousness is perfect and ours imperfect and ours is no patch or supplement to Christs He is not made righteous by our righteousness but we by his 2. But that which is perfect in him is not made perfectly ours nor formally ours in it self as distinct from its merited effects It is not ours as it is Christs Christ that is our Righteousness is also made of God to us wisdom and sanctification And will you say therefore that we are not to be Wise or Holy by any Wisdom or Holiness of our own for fear of adding our patch to Christs 3. You use to say that Christs Righteousness is ours as Adams sin is ours and say some as Adams Righteousness would have been had he persevered But 1. Adams Righteousness would have indeed made an Infant initially just by propagation that is the innocent Child of an innocent Parent But as soon as that Infant had the use of Reason and Choice he must also have a Righteousness of his own or perish And this is no patch to Adams righteousness And indeed in his Infancy he must have a seminal Holiness of his own to justifie him as well as the relation of a Son of Adam 2. So also though we are guilty of Adams sin by propagation yet we have with that guilt 1. An inherent pravity of our own 2. And at age our actual sin And both these are our unrighteousness as well as Adams sin imputed to us Even so Christ the second Adam is a Root of a righteous seed Our Contract by faith is as to him what our Natural propagation is as to Adam that is the Condition of our Interest in his merits We have as believers an initial righteousness in our relation to Christ But we have also from him 1. Inherent habitual righteousness 2. The actual righteousness of faith and true obedience and love And these have their proper use and office without which we must perish 4. And I must tell you that the word Universal is too big to be properly given to any mans justification or righteousness but Christs Properly he only is Universally justified or righteous who hath no unrighteousness at all imputable to him and is justifyable in all things But the best believer 1. Was once a sinner originally 2. Did oft sin actually 3. Hath still sin in him 4. And for some sin may be punished by the Magistrate 5. And for sin is judged and punished by chastisements and death by God 6. And the earth still cursed for our sake 7. Yea which is worst of all we are still under the penaâ—ty of some privations alas how great of Gods Spirit and its Grace and our Communion with God And all this must be confessed And such a one is not Universally justified or just Lib. But still our own Righteousness doth but make us such as thankful persons must be for their Justification by Christ and is no part of that Justification by faith For if faith it self be that Righteousness we have not faith by faith and faith is not imputed to faith but Christs Righteousness is it that is imputed P. Of Imputation in due place 1. What need you talk against that which none of us assert Do we not all hold that our personal Gospel-Righteousness is subordinate to Christs and is by his Gift as ouâ— Wisdom and Sanctisication is Who dreameth that our faith is any part of Christs Righteousness But why do you waste time in vain cavilling against plain certain truth Is there any thing in Name or Thing asserted by us that you can deny or question Quest 1. Do you deny that Scripture commandeth us to Believe that we may be justified Lib. No. P. Quest 2. Or
but the Baptismal Covenant where sure the condition is notorious and every Baptizing Minister prerequireth the profession of it CHAP. VII Whether Justifying Faith be a Believing in Christ as a Teacher Lord c. or only a Receiving of his Righteousness P. VI. AS to this your sixth Charge I have said so much elsewhere in my Disputations of Justification and in other Books that I cannot justifie the tiring of Readers by repeating it And will say now but this little following 1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith and saving faith but excludeth the Works excluded by him from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation 2. That if Receiving Christs Righteousness be meant by them properly and physically it is no sort of faith at all but only the effect of the donation which they call Justificari or passive Justification But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception that is nothing but Consent to have the offered gift And if only Consent to have Christs Righteousness be Justifying faith then all the Assenting part is excluded in which Scripture much placeth it and most Divines in part and many in whole besides Camâ—ro and his followers And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial â—cts are excluded which almost all include even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent 3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith as well as this Consent to be Justified 1. An Assenting belief in God in the baptismal sense 2. An Assent to the truth of Christs Person Office and Doctrine 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost 4. A belief of Pardon Sanctification and Glory as possible purchased and offered by Christ 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher 7. And our King and Ruler 8. And our Intercessor 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence and as our Advocate 10. A belief of his Resurrection Power and Glory 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost 4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Pauls sense is the same thing with our Christianity or becoming Christians And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent 5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith But to accept his righteousness only and not to believe in him as our Lord and our Teacher and Intercessor c. as aforesaid is not to believe in him as Christ 6. In my Answer ubi sup to Mr. Warner and elsewhere I have detected the fraud of their quibling distinction who say that All this is in faith quae justificat but not quà justificat as supposing a falshood that any act of faith quà talis justifieth 7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christs Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith and that to expect to be Justified by any other viz. by Believing in God the Father and the Holy Ghost and believing a Heaven hereafter and believing the Truth of the Gospel and of Christs Resurrection Ascension Glory c. and by taking him for our Teacher Ruler Intercessor c. is to expect Justification by Works in Pauls disclaimed sense and so to fall from Grace I say they that thus teach do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel and making a Gospel or Religion of their own as that I must tell them to move them to repentance not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this but many that in Epiphanius are numbred with Hereticks had far lesser errors than this is CHAP. VIII Of Faiths Justifying as an Instrument P. VII ANd I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest that I cannot perswade my self now to talk it out with you all over again but only to say 1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures that pardon and salvation are given with Christ in the Covenant of Grace on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification and so to be profest in Baptism 2. The name of An Instrument given to faith and its Justifying as an Instrument are of mens devising and not in Gods Word 3. But as to the sense It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification Gods or Mans if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause 4. But if it be taken Metaphorically for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift and so by Instrumentality be meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere that is Faith 's very Essence in specie then no doubt it is what it is 5. Or if by an Instrument be meant A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physicks then it is such an Instrument But how well this is worded and what cause there is to contend for a word both of humane invention and metaphorical and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine I leave to sober judgements 6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification CHAP. IX Whether Faith it self be imputed for Righteousness Lib. VIII WHat do you but subvert the Gospel when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us you say it is by faith imputed P. Do you think any sober Christians here really differ or is it only about the Names and Notions Which ever it be 1. Of the name Is it not oft said that Faith is and shall be imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4. 22 23 24. James 2. 23. Lib. Yes I must grant the words but not your meaning P. Where doth the Scripture say that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of Lib. It saith that Righteousness is Imputed and what Righteousness â—an it be but Christs P. I tell you still it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying Are these the same words Righteousness is Imputed and Christs Righteousness is Imputed If not where are these latter words in Scripture Lib. Grant that the words are not and your words are P. Then the question is Whether Scripture phrase or mans invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying that faith is imputed to us for righteousness and not rather confute our misexpounding it if we do so Lib. Well Let us examine the sense then What
Head and of Pardon and Salvation 8. It is Christ's stated Constitution that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned Mar. 16. 16. That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth Christ's resurrection unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Rom 10. That except you repent you shall all perish Luke 13. 3 5. That men must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2. 38. And repent and be converted that their sins may be blotted out Acts 3. 19. So Rev. 22. 14. Matt. 6. 14 15. Ezek. 33. 14 16. 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness is profitable to all things having the promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Call these Laws or Covenants or what you will we are agreed that all this is the word of God 9. These terms of life and death are the rule of our practices and our expectations by which we must live and by which we shall be judged and therefore we may truly say that they are Christ's Law And they are God's signified determination of the conditions of life and death and his donation of our right to Christ Pardon and Life is contained herein and therefore this may truly be called Christ's Testament and Covenant in several respects 10. Though all duties be prescribed by God's Law and so each Precept is a material part yet formally or specifically the Laws to which these material parts belong must be distinguished by the distinct conditions of life and death 11. God hath made more Promises Donations and Covenants than one or two which must not be confounded 1. His Law and Covenant made to and with man in innocency is one 2. And his Law and Covenant made to and with Christ as Mediator is another 3. And his absolute promise of a Saviour to the World with the conditional promise or Law of Grace conjunct was the first edition of another And the Gospel as after the incarnation promulgate was a more perfect edition of it to pass by Abraham's Covenant of Peculiarity and the Mosaical Law as such 12. Though Christ be promised in one of these and be God's antecedent gift he may nevertheless be the Author of another and so far the foundation as well as the meritorious cause 13. That may be of free Grace which is merited by Christ yea and that which is annexed to the Evangelical worthiness of a believer 14. That may be a condition required of us to be done by the help of Grace which yet is the effect of that Grace and given us by God 15. It is a true Covenant between God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and man which is solemnly entred into in Baptism And this is a Covenant of Grace even that proceedeth purely from Grace and of Grace as given by God and by us accepted He that will confound these various Covenants Promises and Laws on pretence of their unity though there is doubtless a wonderful unity of all the parts both of God's moral signal means and his physical works shall confound much of Theology 16. The Law made to Adam never said either thou or another for thee shall obey but it bound man to perfect perpetual personal obedience 17. Therefore that Law as it obliged us is not fulfilled by the obedience of Christ but only as far as it obliged him nor can any man be justified by it as a fulfiller of it by himself or by another nor did Christ fulfil it in any other mans person though in his stead so far as is aforesaid 18. The Law doth not command any man since Adam perfect personal obedience as the means or condition of life nor promise any life on such a condition as is now naturally impossible but though it be not repealed by God is so far ceased by the cessation of the subjects capacity to be so obliged 19. The Laws obligation of us to punishment is dispenced with and dissolved by a pardon purchased by our Mediator 20. Christ's righteousness is nevertheless the meritorious cause of our righteousness or justification though he justify us by the instrumentality of his donative Covenant as giving us right to our Union and Justification and Life and though our Faith and Repentance be the condition of our Title 21. We accept two Concessions as containing that truth which sheweth that we do not much differ de re could we more happily order our organical conceptions 1. That Christ's righteousness is not the formal cause of our Justification 2. p. 596. Seeing the satisfaction was not made IN THE PERSON of the offender but his substitute it was necessary that THE BENEFIT of ANOTHERS satisfaction should be communicated in such a way as might best please that God whose Grace was the only motive to his acceptation of a substitute It is the undoubted priviledge of the Giver to dispose of his own gifts in his own way And it was absolutely and indispensibly necessary that the sinner should be duly qualified to receive such transcendent favours purchased at so dear a rate and fitted to return the glory to a Redeemer which an unhumbled unbelieving unconverted and unsanctified sinner could not possibly be He that writeth this cannot sure much differ from me hereabouts But he is charitably uncharitable when he saith Never any man in his wits affirmed it so that the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our Justification It 's too charitable to hide that which cannot be hid of so great a number whom it seems he never read for all his Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany c. p. 696. And it 's too uncharitable to judge so many excellent men out of their wits The truth is so many speak so that I have been doubtful I should be smartly censured for saying otherwise Forma qua justificamur est misericordia Patris perfecta Justitia filii saith Ant. Fayus in his Accurate Theses Th. 60. p. 280. And by misericordia Patris being the form you may see how he understood Imputation The number that thus speak are too great here to be recited so that even the most judicious Davenant lest he should go out of the road was fain to make this the Theses to be proved by him Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae probatur Cap. 28. p. 362. c. de Instit habit But let none turn this to our reproach nor take all these for mad for it is but an unapt name and by him and many others soundly meant for the greater part of these Divines say but that Imputatio Justitiae Christi Remissio peccatorum are the form not of Justification as in us but as it is Actus Justificantis as Altingius Maresius Sharpius Bucanus Spanhemius Nigrinus Sohnius
be justified by any act of Faith in specie besides the recumbency on his Righteousness to be imputed to us or by any numero besides the first will likely say that it is Justification by another Righteousness than that which the Scripture saith is imputed to us to be justified by the Imputation of any but the first Act of Christ's Obedience Or else that if all be imputed we have a redundancy of Righteousness and deserve many Heavens or one oftener than needs But when men have received some unsound Principles all things must be forced to comply with them § 37. M. S. Towards the end the M. S. summeth up my Assertions and setteth down some as contrary to them In reckoning up mine he sheweth candor and ingenuity and a good memory having not the Book at hand But I must advertise his Readers 1. That he taketh all from my Aphorisms the first Book I wrote in my youth when my Conceptions of these things were less digested wherefore I have above twenty years ago retracted that Book till I had leisure to correct it and have since more fully opened my judgment in my Confession and in my Disput of Justification and other Writings and most fully in my Methodus Theologiae unpublished 2. That he over-looketh my asserting our Adoption to be by the Merits of Christ's Active Obedience yea and our Justification too as well as by his Passive 3. That reciting my words that it is by Gods Will in the form of his Donation or Covenant that Faith hath that use to Justification which is nearest it viz. the formal Reason of a Condition he leaveth out my other assertion that Faith 's material disposition or aptitude to this form or office is the very nature of it as fitted to that use about its Object Christ which Gods design and our case required His Assertions as against me are as followeth § 28. M. S. 1. There is no way to Life but by Doing It is not enough that the Law be not dishonoured but it must be glorified An. Doing is a word of doubtful sense It 's one thing to Do all that the Law of Innocency required and another thing to do all that the Law of Grace maketh necessary to life It 's one thing to Do all our selves and another thing for a Mediator to merit Pardon and Life to be given conditionally by a new Covenant by Doing all in kind and much more than all that we should have done for us though not in our persons The way to Life now hath many parts 1. Christ's perfect habitual active and passive Righteousness fulfilling the Law of Innocency and the Law of Moses and the peculiar Law of the Mediator to merit Pardon Spirit Adoption and Glory to be given by the New Covenant on its terms 2. The said New Covenant as the donative Instrument and Law of Life and Pardon and Adoption by it 3. Our doing or performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by Grace But our personal Doing all according to the Law of Innocency really or reputatively to be justified by that Law is none of the way of Life which you think the only way And I hope we shall both meet there § 39. M. S. It 's clear as the light of the Sun that their fundamental distinction is absurd to make sinning and suffering equivalent to doing because he that hath born the utmost penalty hath done no more towards living than he that never sinned or suffered else Adam in Innocency should have been sentenced worthy of life If a Servant instead of his Service steal and restore it he meriteth not his wages c. An. 1. It 's certain that you mistake and wrong us I never put sinning among the things that are equivalent to doing or meriting Of this before 2. I doubt you noted not sufficiently that no Creature can merit commutatively as a Proprietor of God as a Servant doth his wages nor can have any thing of God but what in respect of such merit and the value of the thing is an absolute free Gift free as to commutation And that all Gods Laws of Life are but a prescription of the wise Order in which he will give his free benefits As a Father will give Lands to the Son that will behave himself decently and thankfully and not to the contemptuous Rebel So that as to commutation no Man or Angel hath other merit than not to commerit the contrary perdition God is never the better for our Doing If you dream of meriting commutatively from a Proprietor by work for wages I can soon tell you what we set up instead of such merit I hope you had no such thoughts but want of due distinguishing But as to Doing and Merit in respect to Paternal Justice that which I set instead of fulfilling the first Law is a◠aforesaid not sinning and suffering but 1. Christ's Satisfaction and the Merit of his compleat Righteousness 2. The Gift of Pardon and Life by a new conditional Covenant merited and made by him 3. Actual Pardon of all sin thereby 4. Actual Adoption 5. Our fulfilling the Condition of that Covenant that these may be ours And thus the Law was dishonoured by our Sin but is glorified by Christs Obedience and Satisfaction And Gospel-Justice but specially Mercy glorified in our personal Obedience to the Gospel without such Doing indeed Christ's as Principal in fulfilling the Law in the Person of a Mediator and ours as subordinate in obeying the Gospel there is no Glorification And I think this is plain truth But in your instance of a Servant deserving his wages you seem to look at Commutative Justice when we have to do only with governing Paternal Justice And you should have remembred that if the Servant do not his Work in order of governing Justice it is his crime And if he have no fault he hath no fault of Omission And he that hath no Sin of Omission hath done all his Duty and so deserved the Reward As for Adam 1. In the first instant of his life he was bound to no present Duty before he could do a moral Act. 2. But afterward I think he merited in tantum pro tempore and had not the Condition of the Promise been of further extent than one act he had merited life But a Reward for a years Duty is not merited by an hours § 40. M. S. There is a medium between just and unjust He was non-justus He was not actually just though habitually He had done nothing for which the Law could justifie him else why did he not live for ever An. 1. Habitual holiness fits a Soul for Glory where no more is due as if one die immediately And so it would have done Adam had God translated him instantly and made him no Law of actual Duty 2. But afterward that Adam in Innocency did that for which the Law would justifie him in tantum for that time He fulfilled all the Law for so long else he had
he will have all condemned whom he doth condemn But then it must be understood that this distinction iâ— not applyed to the Will of God as he is meerly an Absolute Proprietary or Benefactor but as he is the King or Rector of the world and so his Legislation is his Antecedent Will and his Judgment is his Consequent Will And no man of Religion can deny either that Gods Law is the signification of his Will or his Will signifyed or that his Judgment and â—â—cution is his Will declared or that Gods Law of Grace doth conditionally give pardon and salvation to all antecedently to man's performance or rejection of the condition or that God condemneth Infidels consequently to their Infidelity The Law Antecedently to Mans part acted saith He that believeth shall be saved and the Sentence consequently to his fact saith Judas an unbeliever or impenitent shall perish And thus the distinction hath no doubt or difficulty 103. God by commanding faith and repentance and making theâ— necessary conditions of Justification and by commanding perseverance and threatning the Justified and Sanctified with damnation if they fâ—â— away and making perseverance a condition of Salvation doth thereby provide a convenient means for the performance of his own Decree of giving Faith and Repentance and perseverance to his Elect For he effecteth his ends by suitable moral means and such is this Law and Covenant to provoke man to due fear and care and obedience that he may be wrought on as a man 104. To be justifyed by Faith in general agreeth to the ages before Of Justification by Faith c. Christ's Incarnation and those since But so doth not the special kind of faith by which they are justifyed For much more is Essential to that faith which we must be justifyed by to them that are under the last edition of the Covenant of Grace than was or is to them that were under the first alone Abraham believed not all our essential Articles of faith 105. To be justified by faith in Paul's sence is all one as to be justified What that Faith is by becoming Christians To be a Believer a Disciple and a Christian are all one in the Gospel sence 106. The faith by which we are justified as is aforesaid is best understood The Controversie between the Papists and us about Justification is agitated iâ— vain till we agree of the sence of the words Justification and Remission As I said elsewhere they take not only Justification for a qualitative change such as we call Sanctification but Remission of Sin for they know not what themselves most of them talk as if it were a putting away the Sin in its essence which can be meant of nothing but the Habit for the fact cannot be infectum Others seem to take it for remitting the punishment also with that change Malderus most plainly in 1. 2. q. 113. a. 1. and p. 567. saith that Remission of Sin is Ablatio Reatus culpae At esse longe aliud quam Nolle illud punire non enim tantum facit Hominem non puniri sed etiam non esse Poena dignum Minus tamen est quam in amicitiam recipi though yet no man is in a middle state neque Dâ—i amicus neque inimicus yet cogitations possunt seterari Peccata Remittere idem est quod non imputare si hoc non accipias pro dissimulare sed pro desinere esse offensum cum per Remissionem Deo non imputante est quasi non fuerit By this you may see that these Papists hold the same with those Protestants whom they seem most to resist and cannot hide it But 1. It will be true to eternity that Peter sinned 2. To say so is to blame him 3 His sin deserv'd death 4. The Law and the nature of sin past are the same after pardon as before 5. God doth not change his mind of sin 6. Gods offence or displeasure is not a passion or mutable but his essence as denomina ed from the object to be his Velle punire and Justice that must punish 7. For God to be appeased and no more offended is but his Nolle punire peccatorem and not to be obliged in Justice to punish him but by his Covenant related to him as one that will not punish 8. This change is in the sinner becoming not punishable 9. That is not worthy of it in the Gospel-sence though worthy by the Law of Innocency 10. All this is but that the Reatus pâ—na culpae quantum ad poenam is remitted but not the Reatus culpae simpliciter in se And thus we are all agreed by the Baptismal Covenant and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Reconciled Creator and Father our Saviour and our Sanctifyer connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents For it must needs be the same faith by which we have right to the benefits of that Covenant and by which we are justified because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant it being one of the benefits given by it But Practical Faith or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general therefore to Justification in particular 107. The Phrases of Justifying faith and Faith justifying us are humane and not Scriptural at all And though they may be well used with explicatory caution as being well meant yet they are more lyable to mislead men than the Scripture phrase that we are justified by Faith Because the former phrases are apter to insinuate an Efficiency than the other whereas faith is no efficient cause of our Justification nor any other act of Man And the Scripture that speaketh of Justification by Faith sometime useth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which no more signifyeth any Instrumental efficiency of Justification than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex operibus And though sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used it is to signifie no more than that God hath appointed it to be the Medium of our Justification as a condition but not as any efficient cause 108. The Faith by which we are justified as I touched before hath God the Father for its object as essentially as Christ the Saviour as the said Baptismal Covenant sheweth and that not only secondarily as Christ being the Mediator and way to the Father our faith in Christ connoteth the final object but also directly and primarily as the Father is the first in Trinity and as Creator first related to us and as the end is first in our intention Joh. 17. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou bast sent Joh. 13. 1. Let not your hearts be troubled you believe in God believe also in me 109. And as essential is it to this Faith to believe in Christ as the Purchaser of Holiness and Heaven as to
believe in him as the purchaser of pardon and to believe in him as the Teacher and Ruler of the Church as to believe in him as the justifyer of believers The inseparableness of these acts is commonly confessed 110. Indeed it is essential to this faith 1. To be the act of the three essential faculties of man's Soul the Vital Power the Intellect and the Will 2. And to have for its object God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that in Christ all that is essential to him as a Saviour be its object And therefore 1. That it be an Assent Consent and practical Affiance 2. That it be a believing in Christ as God and Man and as the Teacher Priest and King of the Church revealing the Gospel reconciling us to God and Ruling us in order to Salvation 111. To say that some one only of these parts of Christ's office as they are Concept us inadaequati of a Saviour is the only object of justifying faith and to say that justifying faith is only one Act of the Soul or many acts of one only faculty or to say that we are justified only by such a one and that to expect to be justified by Assent Consent and Affiance or by believing in Christ as our Teacher and Ruler as well as Priest and as a justifying Judg as well as a Justifying Sacrifice and as a fulfiller of the Law is to expect justification by Works as Paul denyeth it This is a vain distinguishing a falsifying the Doctrine of faith and justification a departing from the Scripture simplicity by corrupting seeming subtility and one of those humane inventions which have wronged the Church And it is no wiser than to say that when we speak of taking or receiving a Man to be a Husband a Physician a King it is but one physical aâ— of the Soul that is meant or about one only physical conception in the object which is inadequate Whereas all such Moral or Civil acts coâ—tain many physical acts and are suited to all things in the object which are essential to it in its moral or civil nature or relation 112. And it is but the same deluding subtility and vain curiosity â—â— a playing with deceitful words to say that we are justified by faith Quatenus recipit Christi Justitiam As it believeth in Christ's Sacrifice and perfect obedience only and not As it believeth in him as Teacher Ruler Sanctifier Judg or as he intercedeth for us in Heaven c. when the Scripture saith no such thing at all but simply maketh faith in Christ supposing Faith in God the Father to be that by which we must be justified 113. This distinction is founded in another falshood supposed which is that the effects of all Christ's saving works are as distinctly to be ascribed to several Receiving Acts of faith as they are to the several procuriâ— acts of Christ the object of faith which is another corrupting additioâ— to God's Word One part of the work of our Salvation was done by Christ's humiliation and another by him in his exaltation one by his overcoming the Devil and another by his overcoming the World one by his Cross another by his Grave another by his Resurrection another by his ascension another by his making the new Covenant another by his sending the Spirit another by his sending the Apostles another by his intercession in Heaven another will be done by our Resurrection and another by his last Judgment and our Glorification one by hiâ— as an obeying-subject another as a Sacrifice for sin many by him as a Prâ—phet many as a Priest and many as a King and Judge But to say therefore that our acts of faith as Receptive have as various respects to the effects or benefits and that we are justified by him only as we believe iâ— him as Righteous or a Justifyer and that we are adopted as we believe in him in another respect and sanctifyed as we believe in hiâ— in another respect c. these are the dreams of corrupting curiosity For that Christ who by all these several works hath done all the office of a Redeemer to procure these several effects is preached and offered to us to be entirely as such a Redeemer believed in and received and upon the condition of such an entire faith only Christ and all these benefits conjunctly are by one Covenant given us and no otherwise And believing in Christ as Christ who by all those acts hath himself procured us this Covenant and these gifts is that by which we are justified as it is one undivided faith And the quatenus here as to Christ's own procurement of the effects hath its place but as to the Act of our faith and Christ as the object constituting that faith there is no such diversity or order to be feigned as if the several effects were accordingly to be ascribed to our several Believings or Receiving acts 114. The ambiguity of the very word Receiving hath drawn many into this error Receiving signifyeth sometimes a Physical reception which is meerly Passive or the Relation of the Patient as such to the Act and Agent And this is twofold 1. The Reception of a real being and so to be sanctified is to Receive Sanctification 2. The Reception of a Relation such as all Jus Right to a thing is and so to be pardoned justified and adopted and to Receive pardon justification and adoption is all one 2. Sometimes it signifyeth Moral or Civil receiving which is nothing but 1. The consent of the mind called Acceptance 2. And as to corporeal objects sometime the voluntary act of the body as the Hand taking that which is offered Now if the Receiving in question were physical either rei vel juris ad rem then indeed it would be so neerly related to the thing received which as received is no object because Receiving so is no act as that this quatenus in question might be applyed to it For it may well be said I receive Justification quatenus Justificatus sum as I By this you see the answer to what Mr. Lawson in his excellent Theopolitica hath said against me on this point Of which see fullyer my answer to Mr. Warner in my Disputes of Justification am justified and I receive Sanctification as I am sanctified and vice versa for they are but various words signifying the same thing But of Moral Receiving the case is otherwise For this is not physical Reception but only a Moral Act which is made a necessary medium or Condition to Physical Reception and thence is called Receiving so Accepting or Consenting is a moral means or condition of that Having or Possessing which is consequential And this Acceptance hath relation immediately to the thing as Given only to be made ours according to the Will of the Giver and not made ours according to the order of the things given That is 1. The Ratio proprietatis the Reason that they are ours is the will of the Donor
and the Collation is according to the order of his Will though the Things Given have their intrinsick difference 115. All men confess that this Moral Reception is an Act and therefore hath an object which Physical Reception is not And that thus to Receive doth suppose a Moral Gift which Gift maketh not the thing ours necessarily as physical operation doth but on supposition of our voluntary Reception or Consent And all confess that Gods Donation is by his Covenant Testament or Promise and this Covenant hath its proper nature and mode that is the Condition as imposed antecedent to our Receiving Therefore as the thing Given is made ours by the Donation so according to the order appointed by it and our Consent no otherwise maketh it ours than as the Condition of the Gift performed But Gods Covenant doth Give us Christ and Life that is Justification Sanctification and Glorification in tithe or right in one Gift to be Accepted by one entire faith as the Condition not making at all the order of the Gifts and faiths respect to them in that order to be any of the Ratio proprietatis 116. This will be plainer by humane instances A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant a Wifes Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more adoe Now if the Master of that Servant or the Husband of that Wife be a noble man a rich man a wise man a good man and they knew all this and by knowing it were induced to consent and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility Riches Wisdom Goodness yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly but meerly by consent to their Relation as being his Condition of Collation The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility she is made Rich by his Riches she is instructed by his Wisdom c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich or for consenting to him for Riches than for marrying him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness On her part it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all 117. This is yet fullyer evident in that most usually men make consent to one thing to be the condition of their Receiving or Right to another And usually that which one is most backward to is made the condition of their Right to that which they are most forward or willing to have The Master doth not say If thou wilt have thy wages thou shalt have right to it But if thou wilt do my work thou shalt have thy wages The condition of Marriage is conjugal Love and fidelity q. d. I will be thy Husband and give thee right to all that I have if thou wilt be and do what is essential to a Wife and not if thou wilt have my Riches c. If a Father give a Child a free gift on any condition it will likely be If thou wilt be a thankful and obedient Child and not If thou wilt have it Or if meer consent to have it be put it is usually when it is some gift which it is supposed that the person is not very willing to have As if a Sick man will have Physick if an ungodly man will have Teaching Books or Godliness it self But to this usually they are induced by the Promise of somewhat else which they are willing of As to the Sick If thou wilt take this Physick thou shalt have health To the ungodly If thou wilt have Christ and holiness thou shalt have pardon and happiness Now in the sence of Physical Receiving He that receiveth Physick hath Physick and He that receiveth health hath health c. But in the moral sence of Receiving which is Accepting as it is the condition of a gift so He that receiveth the Physick shall have the health and He that receiveth Christ and his sanctifying Spirit shall have Pardon Justification and Salvation Not that his willingness to have pardon and happiness is the chief or only condition of his pardon and happiness But his Accepting Christ and his Spirit which men are naturally unwilling of is the condition of that pardon and happiness which men would have By all which it appeareth that to say Faith justifyeth me as it is the Receiving of Christs Righteousness and not as it is the Receiving of Christ as a Teacher Ruler c. is a confounding or seducing saying For 1. If it intimate that Faith Justifyeth us as an efficient cause principal oâ— Instrumental it is false * * * Unless by Justifying they mean the acts of Love Hope Obedience called Hâ—â—iness 2. If it mean that Faith is the Condition of Justification quatenus as it receiveth Christs Righteousness only it hath either one or two falshoods 1. If it mean that Faith 's receiving act is the formalis ratio Conditionis or that it justifyeth not qua conditio dâ—â—ationis but quae Receptio Justitiae Christi it is false Therefore qua here can signifie nothing but the Aptitude of faith to be made the condition and so Qua Quae here are all one 2. And then that only the Accepting of Righteousness justifyeth us that is Is the condition of our Justification is a falshood 118. Therefore our consent to be a Holy and obedient people or to take Christ for our Teacher Exemplar Ruler Sanctifier by his Word and Spirit and Judge hath at least as great a hand in our justification being principally the Condition of the Promise as our belief in our acceptance of Christ's Righteousness hath SECT VIII Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed 119. Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane habitual active How little the Papists differ from the Imputation which they quarrel with See in Bellarm. words cited and approved by Davenant de Justit And Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. saith Obj. Pâ—ccatum remitti non potest quamdiu homo manet conversus ad creaturam aversus a Deo At semper aversus erit a Deo nisi mutatur Resp Sufficere mutationem moralem quae per solam Dei condonationem fieri potest ut jam homo non dicatur aversus a Deo This is Antinomianism and false As if God called not him averse who is really averse Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti potest sine actu aut habitu per solam imputationem erit quae est â—aereticorum sententia Resp Haereticos loqui de facto non de imputatione peccati remanentis vere non remissi nos de possibili de verâ— remissione qua peccatum tollatur See how the case is turned and wranglers
all his Benefits are ever free Gifts â—â— to the matter and value first and then the relation of a Reward is bâ— secondary as to the Order of collation and the reason comparative whâ— one man hath them rather than another as a thankful Child hath the Gift which the Contemner goeth without 2. And that here Not to have this Gift forfeited by our sin is to be punished And so hâ—â—â— non-donari is puniri materially though the relations differ 3. And that it is the same Righteousness of Christ which meriteth our Impunity quoad damnum sensum and which meriteth our Right to the Gift of Life both sub ratione doni as a Gift and sub ratione condonationis as a forgiveness of the forfeiture and of the poena damni So that here â—â— no room for the conceit that Christ's death was only to purchase Pardon and his Righteousness to merit Life That which confoundeth men here is their taking the divers Respects and Connotations and Coâ—ceptions of one and the same thing to be divers separable things Thâ— same Law hath the Preceptive part to do and not do and the Retributing part penal and rewarding The same Obedience of Adam was â—â— doing what was commanded and a deserving what was promised â—â—â—â— more was promised to persevering Perfection than to the first act of Obedience One Sin deserved death but one act of Obedience desernâ—â— not immutable Glory And as the same Act is formally Obedience related to the Command and formally meritorious or praemiandus â—â— related to the Promise And the same Act is sin and punishable as related to the Precept or Prohibition and Threatening so the same Glory is a free Gift in one respect as related ut bonum to God as Benefactor and a Reward in another as related quoad ordinem conferendi to God â—â— Rector And the same loss of Glory is poena related to the Threatening and it is the loss of a Reward as related to the Promise And so the sâ—â—â— Merits of Christ's active and passive and habitual Righteousness because our Glory both by giving us pardon of our forfeiture and by Covenant-Donation and as a Reward to Christ and to us when â—â— perform the conditions of his Gift 133. And it is certain that Christ's Sufferings are first satisfactory and then meritorious being a part of his Active that is voluntary Oâ—dience And Christ's Holiness and Obedience are meritorious of pardon â—â— Sin as well as of Salvation 134. If there be as there is any thing which is given us througâ—â— Christ more than our own Innocency or Obedience would have mâ—â—â—ted the Gift of that is more than remission of Sin And is to be ascribeâ— accordingly to the Purchase of Christ's Merits But yet both his Holiness and Sufferings though not as sufferings did merit it And that was not a fulfilling of the Law in our stead 135. This superadded Gift what-ever it is seemeth in Scripture to be included in Adoption and not in Justification But yet it may in this sense be called Justification in that when our Right to that Gift is questioned that Right must be justified by the Covenant-Donation and by Christ's meritorious Purchase of it But this is only de nomine We are agreed of the thing 136. It is greatly to be noted that as a Reward is in the formal notion more than not punishing where materially they are the same so Christ hath not at all merited that eternal Life should be ours by way of Reward for our fulfilling the Law in him but that it should ours by his free Gift as a Reward to Christ for his own Merits So that the Relation of a Reward for Perfection belongeth only formally to Christ who taketh it as his benefit that we are saved through his love to Souls but not at all to us And to say as too many hold that Heaven is our Reward for our perfection of Holiness and Obedience in and by Christ is a Humane Invention subverting Christ's Gospel or unfit speech if better meant 137. Yet a Reward it is to us to be glorified but that is not for our fulfilling the Law of Innocency by Christ but for our believing in Christ and performing the conditions of the Covenant of Grace which giveth us Life as a free Gift but yet in the order of the condition it hath the relation and name of a Reward to us in the Scripture 138. So that here are three rewarding Covenants before us 1. The Covenant or Law of Innocency rewarding man for perfection to the end And this rewarded none but Christ And it is false that we are rewarded by that Covenant or justified by it for Christ's fulfilling it But it All the stir of the Papists is to prove that we have inherent Righteousness as well as pardon which Protestants are as much for as they The rest is de nomine justificationis Malder 1. 2. q. 113. a. 2. p. 572. Apostolus 2 Cor. 5. non aliud vult quam Christum cui nullum debebatur supplicium factum fuisse hostiam pro nostro peccato ut nos qui apud Deum nihil merebamur praeter supplicium justitia Dei fieremus in ipso id est gratis sine nostris operibus consequeremur per ipsius merita justitiam coram Deo What doth this differ from the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Idem ibid Quando Apostolus dicit multos constitui justos per unius obedientiâ—â— significatur causa meritoria non autem formalis And so say we But some call Christ's Righteousness the causa materialâ—s meaning no more but that it is the matter of that Merit for which we are justified As if Adam had perfectly fulfilled the Law his fulfilling it had been meritorious of his sentential Justification and yet the matter of his constitutive Justification that is of his Righteousness And some uâ—â—ptly call it the formal cause But an unapt logical notion is not an error in Faith or Theology Idem ib. p. 573. Quamvis â—x omnino rigida justitia solus Christus Dominus satisfactat de condigno tamen ita ut merces operi â—ono debeatur post Dei promissionem meretur justus coronam justisiâ— quam reddet in illa die justus judex Est nostra justitia tota totum meritum tota satisfactio dependens a meâ—ito satisfactione Christi Still here is a wordy Controversie justified Christ 2. The Law or Covenant made only to and with Christ the Mediator And this Covenant further rewarded Christ as Mediator giving him all that it promised to himself and us for his performing the mediatorial conditions And so our Life is Christ's Reward 3. The Covenant or Law of Grace for it is the same thing in several respects that 's called the Law and the Covenant which giving Life on the condition of Faith doth justifie and reward Believers And we are justified and rewarded by no other Law 139. When Rom. 4. oft saith and other Texts that we are
instrumentally giving 4. Right to Impunity and Glory by Justification and Adoption conjunct the thing given which Right is our very Righteousness against â—his Accusation that is a relation whence the other relation of just and â—ustifiable resulteth For if you will not here see relations resulting from â—elations pretend not to true accurateness in your search 166. These four Causes now were enough to constitute and so prove â—s righteous against the Charge of being damnandi if we were questionaâ—le no further But the turning point of the day is yet behind 1. Our â—llegation of Justification by Christ and the Covenant may be denied â—t may be said by the Accuser that the Covenant justifieth none but â—enitent Believers and giveth plenary Right to Glory to none but saints â—nd persevering Conquerors and that we are none such Against this Acâ—usation we must be justified or perish else all the rest will be unâ—ffectual And here to say that it is true I died an impeninent Person â—n Insidel Hypocrite or Ungodly but Christ was a penitent Believer for Of our own personal performance or righteousness how far necessary to our Justification â—e or sincere and holy for me or that he died to pardon this all this will â—e false and vain Christ's Merits and Satisfaction is not the Righteousness it self which must justifie us against this Accusation But our own â—ersonal Faith Repentance sincere Holiness and Perseverance purchased â—y Christ and wrought by the Spirit in us but thence our own acts Mr. W. Thomas of Ubley in his Book against Speed the Quaker saith pag. 42. part 2. This is an old Popish trick to make much of the Doctrine of the St. James in a mistaken interpretation and to lay aside the Doctrine of St. Paul Rom. 3. 28. when they should joyn both together and ascribe to Faith the justification of men as sinners and to work their justification as Believers This is sound and needeth but fuller explication â—e that cannot truly say The Accusation is false I am a true Penitent â—anctified persevering Believer must be condemned and perish Thus â—aith and Repentance are our Righteousness by which we must thus far â—e justified 167. But this is but a particular mediate subservient Righteousness â—nd part of our Justification subordinate to Christs Merits 168. Yet this being the Condition on our part for our Participation â—n all the free Gifts of the Covenant Scripture useth to describe Gods â—udgment as enquiring after this The great thing to be glorified in â—udgment is Gods Love Wisdom Justice and Truth and Christ's great Merits and performance in our Redemption But the great thing questioâ—ed accused tried and judged will be our performance of the Covenant of Grace as to our conditions The day is not to try God whether he be â—ust or Christ whether his Merits and Satisfaction were sufficient and whether he have done his part But to try man whether 1. He have â—rue Right to Impunity and Glory 2. Whether he have performed the Condition on which the Covenant giveth that Right and be indeed the â—rue Receiver of it The Devils hope cannot lie at all in proving Christ or the Covenant faulty or defective on their part but in proving â—s to be none of the persons that have Right This therefore is the Righteousness mentioned Matth. 25. and of Faith imputed Rom. 4 c. â—nd else-where 169. But if we will speak of Righteousness and Justification entirely â—s that which containeth all its Causes we must set all the five forementioned together giving each one its proper place and no one the â—lace or office of the rest And give leave to the self-conceited pievish â—gnorant blindly to revile you for saying that you joyn your Faith and Holiness to make one Righteousness with that of Christ as if it were not sufficient And tell him that Christ's Righteousness is not ours absolutely in it self but to and in the proper effects And that it is perfect as to its â—roper ends And that he never intended it to this end to be instead of Faith and Holiness in us nor to make them needless to our Salvation 170. No man must ascribe any thing to his own Faith or Holiness iâ— the least degree which is proper to 1. Gods Mercy or Grace 2. To Christ or his Righteousness or Merits 3. Or to the Covenant not any thing but its proper part And that must be granted it 171. It is a vain Fiction in them that think our Right to Justificatioâ— or Impunity and our Right to Salvation have not the same causes and conditions but that our own Repentance and Obedience is a condition of our Right to Salvation but not to Impunity or forgiveness Whereas ouâ— very Justification is a justifying of our Right to Salvation and the same Covenant giveth them conjunctly on the same conditions 172. But our Right to both as begun hath less for the condition thâ—â— our Right to them as continued and perfected For our believing consent to the Baptismal-Covenant putteth us into immediate Right to all the benefits of the Covenant which we are then capable of but not to all that we shall be made further capable of hereafter we are pardoned and should be glorified if we presently died But as we have more Grace to receive so we have more Duty to perform as a means yea a condition of obtaining it 173. This over-lookt by many is much to be considered both as to the case of Infants baptized and the Adult Many wonder that the What right the Covenant giveth to the after-helps and degrees of Grace Children of godly Parents prove oft so bad as if by the Baptismal-Covenant they had received nothing from God But the Synod of Dort Art 1. § 17. well concludeth that godly Parents have no cause to doubt of the Election or Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy they being holy and in the same Covenant with their Parents But the continuance of Gods Grace hath a continued condition and means to be used on our part The condition which the Covenant requireth to an Infants first Justification is that he be the Child of a true Believer by him dedicated to God And as the first Condition is to be found in the Parent or Owner so must the Condition of continued Grace as long as the Child continueth an Infant And that is the continuance of the Parents Faith and his faithful performance of his promise made to educate his Child in the way of God But if the Parents should presently both turn Infidels and so educate their Child and give him up as the Jâ—â—izaries are to an Infidel to educate I know God may nevertheless give him Grace above his Promise if he please for a Benefactor as such is free but I know of no assurance of it by Promise For in Baptism both Parties were obliged for the future and not one only And if when the Child cometh to the use of Reason he wilfully
really all is but a Thankful Accepting of the mercy of the new Covenant according to its nature and use as it is offered 196. It is a great question whether a man may Trust to his own Faith Of Trusting in our own faith repentance holiness c. Repentance or Holiness But some men still trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ No wise man can dream that we may Trust to these for more than their proper part as that we may Trust them to do any thing proper to God to Christ to the Spirit to the Promise c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own faith or Holiness when it soundeth absolutely or may tempt the hearers to think that they may Trust them for Gods part or Christ's part and Of which see more in my Life of Faith Tollit gratia Meriâ—um non quod omnino nihil agamus sed quia non satisfacimus legi procul absumus a perfectione Melancth in Loc. Com. de lib. arb c. 7. not only for their own is a dangerous deceiving course But that really they may be Trusted for their own part and must be so no sober person will deny For so to believe obey pray to God c. and not to Trust to them in their place that is not to think that we shall be ever the better for them is unbelief and indeed distrusting God and saying It is in vain to serve him and what profit is it that we call upon him And such diffidence and despair will end all endeavours Let every man prove Gal. 6. his own work and so shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another This is our Rejoycing the testimony of our Consciences that in simplicity 2 Cor. 1. 12. and Godly sincerity we have had our Conversation in the world If we are Justified by faith we may Trust to be Justifyed by it But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture and the danger of it must make us never use it without need As if we were disputing whether the Popish or Protestant Religion be that which a man may trust for his Salvation or the like And when ever it 's used it implyeth our Trust in God and our Saviour only for their part 197. To conclude this great point of Imputed and Inherent Righteousness The last objection of the mistakers of Imputation To save me that much labour of citations I desire the Reader to see in Guil. Forbes Consider Pacific the Concessions of Vega Pighius Stapleton and other Papists about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as granting us all that Protestants mean as Bellarmine expresly doth as Davenant Nigrinus Joh. Crocius and many others have observed it may be objected that The same man may well be judged a Sinner deserving hell never fulfilling the Law nor satisfying Justice nor deserving Heaven in himself that is in his Natural person and yet be Judged one that never sinned but fulfilled the Law is perfectly holy and righteous and merited Heaven in his Legal or Civil person in and by Christ To which I answer One man is but one and hath but one person But if you take the word Person equivocally as signifying another that is made like him in some respects or that hath his Nature or doth somewhat in his stead and for his benefit as a second person say so and we will strive with no man about words If you will say we are now on earth in our Natural persons and are in Heaven in Christ or that we are Redeemed in our Natural persons but Redeemed our selves in Christ or that you are sick in your Natural person and well in your person in Christ c. I like not your language but there are scarce any words so bad which a man may not put a good sence on But we would be understood and plainly ask whether Christ was properly every sinners or believers person in Law-sence so that ipso facto God accounteth us to have been habitually and actively perfect in Him and to have merited and satisfied in him If so the Law can look on one man but as one And he that paid a debt by his Servant or any other as his Legal person cannot be required to do it again in his Natural person unless you will say that God loveth our Legal person and will save it and may hate our Natural person and damn it The Scripture useth no such contradictory subtleties as these SECT XI How faith Justifieth 198. The common saying that faith justifieth as an Instrument might pass as tolerable if too many did not strain it to a wrong sence and raise Note that when we call faith an Accepting it relateth to the Donation of the Covenant and the Donatum which is a Jus ad beneficia Renovation is effected by faith as a second cause but Pardon is Accepted by it And we fully grant the Papists that Renovation and pardon go together whatever they call them And some of themselves do speak just as we de Remissione Macula which others are confounded about Vid. Wotton's citations out of the Schoolmen de Macula de Reconcil pec And Brianson saith in 4. q. 8. fol. 116. that sin as â—emitted or guilt is Tantum quaedam Relatio rationis in quantum est objectum intellectus Voluntatis divinae Quia postquam commissit peccatum Dei voluntas ordinat ipsum ad poenum correspondentem peccato Intellectus praevidet pro omni tempore donec poena debita sit soluta Videre peceata Dei est ad â—oenam imputâ—re Avertere faciem est ad poenam non reservare August Ergo niâ— aliud est post actum câ—ssantem pâ—â—catis offâ—nsa Macula reatus nisi ista relatio rationis Sâ—d hujus Ordinatio ad â—oenam ut est disconveniens ipsi animae dicitur ejus Macula ut autem est obligatio formaliter ad istam poenam dicitur Râ—atus Et ut est divinae voluntatis c. dicâ—tur Offensa Nil n aliud est Offendi vel Irasci in Deo quam vâ—lle Vindicare ista poena But he after owneth that the culpa is another thing unwarrantable Doctrines from it and harden the Papists by unwarantable Answers A Justifying Instrument properly is an efficient Instrâ—mental cause of Justification which I have elsewhere too largely proved that faith is not either Gods Instrument or ours Physical or Moral noâ— any way efficiently justifieth us But justifying is one thing to Receive justification is another thing and to be justified is a third Faith iâ— no justifying act But faith is in its Essence the Acceptance of an offered God Christ Spirit for Life This Acceptance is by the Covenant made the condition of our passive true Reception and Possession of Right before opened To be such a Condition performed is to be a removens prohibeâ—s of the said Reception which is strictly to be Dispositio materiae recipientiâ— And so it
may be called 1. A Receiving Cause 2. And a mediâ—â— or dispositive Cause of the effect Justification as Received but not as Given As I said Dr. Twisse chooseth to call it But this causa Dispositiva is pâ—â— of the causa Materialis viz. Qua disposita A cause or more properly a condition why I receive Justification and by receiving it am Justified which is their meaning who call it A Passive Instrument that is A â—â—ceiving Instrument 199. The plain easie truth is that Faiths Nature which is to be â—â—lieving Acceptance of Christ and Life offered on that Condition being â—â— very essence is but its Aptitude to the office it hath to our Justification by which the Question is answered why did God promise us Christ and Life â—â— the Condition of faith rather than another Because of the congruity of its Nature to that office But the formal Reason of its office as to our Justification is Its Being the performed Condition of the Covenant And if God had chosen another condition a condition it would have been Now the true notion in Law being a Condition Logicians would call this improperly a Receiving cause and more properly A Receptive Disposition of the matter reducing it to Physical notions But the most proper term is the plainest We are justified by that faith which is the Believing Practical Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Given us on that condition in the Baptismal Covenant because or as it is made by God the condition of his Gift thereby Understand this plain doctrine and you have the plain truth 200. They that say contrarily that Faith justifieth proximately as it is an Instrument or a Receiving Accepting act and not as a Condition of the Covenant do evidently choose that which they vehemently oppose viz. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifieth For the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or the â—â—â—â— of Faith is to be an Acceptance of Christ given But if they will to avoid this say that By Faith they mean Christ believed in then they say that by Receiving Christ they mean not the receiving of him but Christ himself And why then do they not say so but trouble the world with such unintelligible phrases But to open the senselessness and coâ—sequents of that Doctrine would but offend All know that Chriâ—â—â—â— the object is connoted as essential to the act of Faith SECT XII How Repentance is joyned with Faith 201. Repentance is a Dispositio materiae recipientis too and a part of the condition of the Covenant And so far a Material or dispositive Receiving Cause But not an Acceptance of the Gift formally in its averting act 202. Faith and Repentance are words used in Scripture in divers significations Saith Malderus Gu. Amesius a parte recedit ab antiquo Calvinismo quiae requirit ad justitiam bonae operâ— tanquam conditionem praerequisitam quod â—tiam extendit ad ipsam â—lectionem See here how little the Papists understand us As Faith is sometimes taken for bare Assent as Jam. 2. and usually for Affiance or Trust and always when it denominateth a Christian or Justified Believer as such it essentially includeth all the three parts Assent Consent and Affiance but yet denominateth the whole by a word which principally signifieth One act which commonly is Affiance as including the other two so Repentance is sometime taken comprehensively for the whole Conversion of a Sinner to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so it includeth Faith in the narrower sence and is the same thing as Faith in the larger sence but express'd under another formal notion Sometimes it is taken more narrowly and that 1. As to the Act. 2. As to the Object 1. As to the Act and so the word Repentance signifieth only the Aversion of the Soul from evil by sorrow and change of mind And this is the strict formal notion of the word though usually it be taken more largely as including also the Conversion of the Soul to Good which is the usual Scripture and Theological sense though the word it self do chiefly signifie the Averting act 2. As to the Object 1. Repentance sometime signifieth the Turning of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God And so Repentance towards God is distinguished from Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ 2. And sometimes it signifieth only the turning of the Soul and life from some particular Sin 203. Repentance as it is the turning of the Soul from sin and Idols * The Papists take Repentance it self to be part of the Remission of Sins And let the Reader note for the fuller opening of what I have said of their darkness thereabouts that Jansenius Aug. To. 1. li. 5. c. 22. p. 126. maketh four things to be inseparably conteined in Remission though distinguishable 1. The Conversion of the Soul to God 2. The abstersion of the Macula or filth 3. Reconciliation or the remission of Gods offence 4. The relaxation of the aeternal punishment That all these are then at once given us we are all agreed But whether the name Remission or Pardon of sin â—e meet for them all we disagree Is it not visible then how unhappily we strive about words wheâ— we talk like men of several Languages But all is but removation and remitting the penalty of which Gods offense is the first part And Macula is either the sin it self or the relative consequents to God is the same with Faith in God in the large Covenant-sence and includeth Faith in God in the narrower sence Repentance as it is our Turning from Infidelity to Christianity is the same with Faith in Christ in the large Covenant-saving-sence and includeth Faith in Christ in the narrower sence as it is meer Assent Repentance as it is a Turning from the Flesh to the Holy Ghost as our Sanctifyer is the same thing as our Faith in the Holy Ghost in the large Covenant sence and includeth Faith in the Holy Ghost in the narrower sence But when they are the same thing the ratio nominis or formal notion is not the same As man's mind is not so happy as to conceive of all things that are one by one entire single Conception so we are not so happy in our language as to have words enough to express things entirely by one name but we must have several words to express our inadequate conceptions by And so that is called Repentance as the Souls motion from the Terminus a quo which is called sometimes Faith or Affiance and sometimes Love from the motion of the Soul to the Terminus ad quem though the Motus be the same But when Faith and Repentance are distinguished as several parts of the Condition of the new Covenant the common sence is that Repentance signifieth the Conversion of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God which is or includeth Faith in God And Faith signifieth specially Faith in Christ as the Mediator and way
I believe I grant it if 1. This be in it self as evident 2. And as certain to me as Gods Word is otherwise I deny it 236. Obj. A man cannot believe and not know that he believeth Ans But a man may sincerely believe and yet through ignorance either of the Scripture or himself be uncertain that indeed his Faith is sincere and not such as is common to the justified 237. Some Protestants by erring in this point and saying that justifying Faith is a certain perswasion or belief that we are justified and that it is Gods own Word that I or you are actually justified or are sincere Believers and that the believing it is properly fides Divina have greatly scandalized and hardened the Papists to our disgrace 238. And so have those that say that in the Creed the meaning of I believe the Remission of Sin is I believe that my sins are remitted actually And that all must thus believe 239. Some say that the Spirit within them saith that they are sincere Believers and the Word of the Spirit is the Word of God and to believâ— it is to believe God Ans This is the Enthâ—sâ—asts conceit which if true all such have prophetical Inspiration For the Spirit to bring any new word from God is one thing and to give us the Understanding Love and Obedience to such a Word is another thing The Spirit doth indeed assure us of our sincerity but not by a new Word from God to tell us so but 1. By giving us that sincere Faith it self 2. By acting it and increasing it 3. By helping us to know it 4. By giving us the love of God and other Graces 5. By giving us the comfort of all But the reception and perception of these internal Operations is not properly called a Belief of the Word of God Else when we make Gods Word the adequate Object of Faith we shall be still at an uncertainty what that Word is 240. Yet this perswasion that we are sincere and justified is divine where the Spirit causeth it but not a divine Faith Yea it is participatively of divine Faith because Gods Word is one of the premises though the weaker must denominate the conclusion * * * Of this see Albertinus's Disp at large 241. Obj. A Reprobate or Devil may believe all the Articles of Faith without application but justifying Faith applieth Christ and his benefits to our selves Ans It 's true But this application is not a certainty nor a perswasion nor a believing that I am justified no more than that I am glorified no nor that I shall be so neither But it is an accepting of Christ offered that I may be justified and saved So that here are all these applying acts in it 1. I believe that Christ as the Saviour of the World is my Saviour as he is all other mens and is not the Devils that is that he hath done that for me which he hath done for all mankind 2. I believe that he is offered to me personally in the Promise or Covenant of Grace on condition of believing-acceptance and that with and for all his purchased benefits and so for my Justification 3. I believe that if I so accept him I shall be justified 4. By true consent I do accordingly accept him to justifie sanctifie and save me But when all this is done 1. I do not believe that God hath said in his word that I am justified nor that my Faith is sincere 2. And my Faith is so weak that I may long doubt of that sincerity which I have and so of my Justification 3. And when I come to be certain of my Faith it is not by believing God as saying that I do certainly believe but by experience of its sincerity upon just trial by the Spirits help 242. No man can be sure that his Faith is sincere and saving who is not assured that it will help him to love God as God above all yea already doth so and that it mortifieth selfishness and will prevail with him to deny even life it self and all the world for Christ and Salvation So far as a man doubteth of any of this he must needs doubt of his own sincerity 243. So weak is Faith in most that are sincere and so little kept in exercise and so strong is sense and self and flesh and worldly bâ—its and interest and Satan's temptations that in my experience who have conversed with as many that are careful of their Souls as most have done I think it is a very small number that I could ever hear say I am certain of my Justification and Salvation But a great number who have lived in holy confidence hope and peace and some in great joy but most in tollerable fears and doubting and some few oppressed by those doubts So that certainty of Salvation is very rare 244. When Bellarmine saith that our assurance more belongeth to Hope than Faith and that it is but moral certainty by signs that we have of our Justification Sincerity and Salvation he so little differeth from the sense of almost all godly Protestants that were it not through other distances and partiality we had never read in Luther's days that for this one point alone we have cause enough of our alienation from the Romanists 245. They err on one extream who say that all are commanded to believe that they are justified or any as if it were Gods Word And they err on the other hand who command doubting or commend it as if it were a duty or a benefit And they speak the truth who say that our doubting of our own Sincerity and Justification if we are sincere is a sin of Infirmity and a Calamity proceeding from weakness of Faith Hope Love and Self-acquaintance which we should use all possible diligence to overcome But they that are not sincere are bound to know it And first to seek and get sincerity and then discern it 246. It is by the Spirit that all Christians must come to their assurance But not by the Spirit as speaking this in us as a word from God Thou art justified or shalt be saved or art sincere But by the aforesaid Acts The Spirit in us is first Christ's Agent Advocate and Witness to assure us that he is the Saviour of the World And next he is our Witness to assure us that we are Gods adopted Children which he doth by being in us Gods Mark and the Pledge First-Fruits and earnest of our heavenly Inheritance by effectual habituating our Souls to the predominant love of God and Holiness and Heaven Where-ever this Sanctification is there is the Evidence and Witness of our Adoption He that findeth by the Fruits that he hath the Spirit findeth the certain proof of his Justification and earnest of Glory SECT XVII Of Love as the end of Faith 247. This predominant Love of God and Holiness is so proper a Cui non unus idemque vitâ— scopus est hic
to be damned to Hell but to be glorified in Heaven or to be sentenced to endless life and acquit from this Accusation that we are damnandi or to be punished in Hell And in order to this to be sentenced such as have the true causes and conditions of Right to Impunity and Life which are 1. Immediately the gift of this Right by God himself in his Covenant with Christ the Fountain of it 2. A true Right and Relation to Christ as our Head and Saviour and the only Meriter of this Covenant-Gift and Justification and Adoption by his habitual active and passive Righteousness and Sacrifice advanced in dignity by Union with his Divine perfection 3. True Faith and Repentance with Love Obedience and Perseverance as the title-conditions required by the donative and condonative Covenant 358. As I have before said that a man must be justified at that Day from the charge of Infidelity by his Faith it self and not by Christ's Merits and from the charge of Impenitence by his Repentance it self So I add that he must be justified from the charge of Hypocrisie by his sincerity and from the charge of Rebellion by his subjection and from the charge of wickedness by final godliness and obedience and from the charge of Apostacy by perseverance But from the charge of his wickedness before Conversion and his pardoned sins and weakness since only by Christ's Sacrifice and meritorious Righteousness and the Pardon purchased thereby and given in the New Covenant And from the accusation that we are Sinners in general we have no Justification at all 359. Judgment is the Genus and Justification and Condemnation are the Species Therefore to be judged according to our Works is to be justified or condemned according to our Works 360. As I said that it is God's Justice and Mercy and Christ's Redemption of us which are chiefly to be glorified at that Day but it is our personal Gospel-Righteousness or performance of the Conditions of the New Covenant which is then to be tried and we and not Christ that are to be judged So I add that the New Testament referring to this fore-seen doth usually speak accordingly of justifying us by Faith by our words or by our works that he that doth righteousness is righteous c. And it speaketh of that same Righteousness as constituting us just first by which we must be judged just at last 361. It is very easie therefore where prejudice blindeth not men to see the concord of Christ's saying We are justified by our words and Paul's by Faith and not by Works and James by Works and not by Faith only Christ speaketh of a particular Justification from a common great Crime a wicked Tongue as the sign or product of a wicked Heart And this must be part of the personal material Righteousness by which we must be justified as true Christians * * * Tolet in Rom. 3. Annot 17. Estius in Rom. 3. 28. Vega de justiâ— qu 3. p. 899. say of Justification by Faith as the Protestants do Vid. Stapleton de Justifi li. 8. c. ult Bellarm. de Justif l. 2. c. 7 10 11. Suarez de Grat. l. 7. c. 7. n. 29. Topper art 8. de Justif p. 25 26 27. Vasqu in 1. 2. disput 202. c. 6. n. 45. Coster Enchir. p. 292. Paul speaketh of our being justified by being Christians and not by keeping Mose's Law or doing any Works which will be to us instead of a Christ or a free-given Pardon and Righteousness by him And James speaketh of the full condition of Justification as continued final and compleat as it consisteth of its essential parts 362. The Key of Understanding Paul's Discourses of Justification is to know 1. That the grand question which he first manageth is Whether the Gentiles may not be saved without keeping the Jewish Law as well as the Jews with it 2. To prove the Affirmative he proveth that the Jews themselves cannot be saved or justified meerly or primarily by the Law notwithstanding the divinity and great excellency of it but must be justified by a Saviour and free-given Pardon and Right to Life and to which the sincere keeping of Mose's Law was intended to be but subservient 3. That therefore it appeareth that the Jews did so fondly admire the Law and their national priviledges under it that they thought that the exact keeping of it was necessary and sufficient to Justification and Salvation And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness as a Sacrifice for Sin and Meriter of free Pardon and the Gift of Life but only a great King and Deliverer to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies and Bondage 4. That it was not Adam's Covenant of Innocency or Perfection which the Jews thus trusted to or Paul doth speak against as to Justification though a minore ad majus that also is excluded For the Jews knew that they were Sinners and that God pardoned Sin as a merciful God and that their Petavius de Leg Grat. li. 1. c. 7. Well openeth the various senses in which the Law doth or doth not promise life eternal And through his two Books is much worth the reading of the difference of the Law and Gospel See Mr. Allen's Treat of the Two Covenants with my Preface And Mr. Truman's Great Propitiat with the Append. Law had Sacrifices for Pardon and Expiation with Confessions c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to political ends and to temporal Rewards and Punishments it had been sufficient to eternal Rewards and Punishments and that of it self and not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah Therefore they thought that he that kept the Law so far as to comit no sin which the Law punished with death or abscission and that for all his other pardonable sins performed the required Penances and Sacrifices was by this which is called The Works of the Law that is the keeping of the Law a righteous justifiable person 5. That the thing therefore which Paul disproveth them by is 1. That the Law was never made for such an end 2. That even then it stood in subordination to Redemption and free-given life 3. That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace containing the Promise of the Messiah and Pardon and Life by him was before the Law and justified Abraham and others even without it 4. That their Law was so strict that no man could perfectly keep it all 5. That every Sin deserveth death indeed though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate 6. That their Law was never Obligatory to the Gentile world who had a Law written in their Hearts and therefore not the common way of Justification * * * Jansenius Aug. To. 2. c. 4. asserteth That the chief difference between the old Law and the new is that the old was written in Stone and Tables and the new only in memory and
in the heart and so maketh the Creed to be more properly this Law than the Scriptures as being written only on particular occasions But though we thankfully confess that the essentials of Christianity are so plain and few as may be remembred yet the Creed is contained and explained in the Scripture and without written Records our Faith would have been but ill preserved as experience and reason prove 7. That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it Insomuch as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfil it without sin yet he could not but was under a captivity that is a moral necessity of imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the Grace of Christ could as to guilt and power deliver him 8. That no man ever came to Heaven by that way of merit which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift and pardoning Mercy Therefore their conceit that they were just in the main and forgiven their sins and so justifiable by the meer dignity of Mose's Law which they kept and by the Works of the Law and not by the free Gift Pardon and Grace of a Redeemer and by the Faith and practical belief of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a pernicious errour But the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians that is with such a penitent thankful accepting practical belief or affiance to believe in God as the Giver of Salvation in Christ as the Redeemer and his Spirit as our Life and Sanctifier and to accept Christ and all his procured Benefits Justification and Life as purchased by his Sacrifice and meritorious Righteousness and given in the New Covenant on this condition and so to give up our selves to his whole saving-work as to the Physician of our Souls and only Mediator with God This is the sum of Paul's Doctrine on this point 363. I say again therefore for any man to say that some one physical act either assent or consent or affiance upon one particular Object Christ's Righteousness as offered us is the instrumental cause of our Justification and that to look to be justified by any other act of Faith on Christ or on the Father or Holy Ghost or on Heaven the final Object God in Glory or secondarily as subsequent parts of the condition of Salvation by Repentance by praying for Pardon by forgiving others by Obedience to Christ c. is to look to be justified by Works in the sense that Paul excludeth them this is but to abuse the Gospel and the Church by a scandalous misinterpretation of a great part of the New Testament 364. St. James therefore having to do with some who thought that Leg. Placeum in Thes Salvin de hâ—sce Vol. 1. Conrad Bergium in Prax. Cathol â— e Blank Thes de Just and our Mr. Gibbon's Serm. Of Justif in the Morning-Exercises at Giles in the Fields Paraeus de Justif Cont. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 7. p. 469. Nos imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per â—am formaliter justi nominâ—mâ—r simus neque diximus unquam neque sentimus ut aliquoties jam ostendimus Id enim pugnaret non minus cum recta ratione quam si reus in judicio absolutus diceret se clementia judicis donantis sibi vitam formaliter justum esse c. the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity and that Faith was a meer assent to the Truth and that to believe that the Gospel is true and trust to be justified by Christ was enough to Justification without Holiness and fruitful Lives and that their sin and barrenness hindered not their Justification so that they thus believed perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken and that when God spake of Justification by Faith without the Works of the Law he never meant a Faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we believe nor that is separated from actual Obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Infidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere Obedience against the charge that we are unholy and wicked or impenitent or Hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God 365. All this then is past controversie among considerate understanding men 1. That Works justifie us not as perfect according to the Covenant of Innocence because we have them not 2. That the Works or keeping of Mose's Law as conceited sufficient or as set in opposition against or competition with a Saviour or free Gift or any otherwise than as the exercises of meer Obedience under Christ as Mary â—â—chary Elizabeth Simeon John Baptist David c. used them could justifie no man 3. That consequently no other Works set up either in the said opposition or competition or as any thing of Merit or worth is ascribed to them which is proper to Christ or any part of the honour of Gods free Gift can justifie no man nor any other way than as meer conditions and exercises of thankful obedience or acceptance in pure subordination to God's Mercy and Christ's Merits and the free Gift But that Works are not excluded from being conditions of our justification or the matter of it in any of these following respects 1. That Faith it self which is our act and an act of Obedience to God and is the â—iducial accepting belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the benefits of the Covenant is the condition of our first Covenant-right to these Benefits 2. That this Faith is not actual Obedience to Christ as Christ at first but only to God as God But it is the Souls subjection to Christ as Christ which is our Covenant-consent to our future Obedience and virtually though not actually containeth our future Obedience in it 3. That there is somewhat of love consent or willingness of Desire of Hope of Repentance which goeth to make up this moral work of Faith as it is the condition even our first Christianity it self 4. That as the making of a Covenant is for the performing of it and subjection is for Obedience and Marriage for conjugal Duties so our said first Covenanting-Faith is for our future Faith Hope Comfort and grateful Obedience and Holiness And these are the secondary parts of the condition of Salvation And so are the secondary parts of our Justifications condition as continued or not-lost and consummate For to justifie us is as is said to justifie our Right to Impunity and Glory â— That as is said our own performance of the condition of the free Gift of Impunity and Glory by the New Covenant purchased by Christ's Righteousness is the thing to be tried and judged in Gods judgment And therefore we must so far be then justified from the charge of â—ot performing that condition of
What man can do further opened p. 114. Crim. 3. Holding free will to good p. 121. A manifold Liberty evinced by many Questions p. 122. Whether any that use it not have liberty to believe p. 124 125. Crim. 4. That men are not dead in sin p. 125. Crim. 5. That man is not meerly passive in his first conversion p. 126. Crim 6. None damned for Adam's sin only p. 128. The seventh days Conference Of Sufficient and Effectual Grace Crim. 1. Of the Armin. Denying sufficient Grace they damn men for meer Impossibilities p. 130. Had Adam sufficient Grace p. 132. Of the 13th Artic. of the Church of England p. 133. How God willeth mens Salvation p. 134. Crim. 2. Making Grace unresistible p. 136. How far they do so The eighth days Conference Crim. 1. Of the Calv. They assert universal sufficient Grace p. 139. Queries evincing Common Grace p. 139. The greatness of their error that deny it p. 141. Doth this satisfie while God that can save men will not p. 143. What Grace and what sufficient Grace is p. 145. Whether the same measure of Grace called meerly sufficient be ever effectual p. 148. What the Grace in that question is Whether a vis impressa Of determination by God and by the Intellect p. 151 152 153. Crim. 2. By Grace they mean Nature as Pelagius p. 156. What Nature is Grace how far supernatural p. 158. Crim. 3. Making Grace but a Moral swasion p. 160. Physical operation what p. 162. Crim. 4. They hold faith to be acquired and not infused p. 162. What acquired and infused means p. 163. Dr. Twisse about this noted p. 167 c. Crim. 5. They hold Grace given according to works or preparation p. 169. Crim. 6. They make the Will to have no sin or Grace p. 171. Crim. 7. They make Grace resistible p. 172. The case further opened p. 173 174 c. Is there any universal second cause of Grace under God as the Sun in Nature which worketh resistibly and God by it ad modum recipientis p. 177. Christ how far such ib. Crim. 8. They make mans Will to make himself to differ c. p. 180. What differing is what the causes as to believing ib. How far God worketh by universal Grace p. 185. Who made thee to differ opened p. 186. Crim. 9. Man's will maketh Gods Grace effectual and not Gods p. 186. Whence Grace is effectual p. 189. Differencing Grace what p. 192. It not all the question of the Divine Impress p. 193 194. The case summarily opened p. 196. The ninth days Conference Of Perseverance The Arm. Crim. 1. They make fear and care to be folly p. 198. Crim. 2. They cherish all sin p. 200. Crim. 3. Their Doctrine is uncomfortable on pretence of confuting p. 200 201. Both sides charge each other thus A middle way about Perseverance avoiding both p. 204. Crim. 4. They dishonour Gods Image making heinous sin consistent with it p. 204. Crim. 5. Immodesty and singularity contradicting all the ancient Church p. 206. Crim. 6. Contradicting express Scripture p. 207. The tenth days Conference The Calv. Criminations about Perseverance Crim. 1. They overthrow the comfort of believers that deny Perseverance p. 208. What comfort may be had by such p. 211. Crim. 2. and 3. They make God or his Covenant mutable p. 212. Crim. 4. They deny the Promise of Perseverance p. 213. Crim. 5. They infer a second Regeneration p. 214. Crim. 6. They go against the Doctrine of Augustine c. p. 215. The just extenuation of this last controversie p. 215. The eleventh days Conference with a Libertine called Antinomian vindicating sound Doctrine against divers accusations Chap. 1. Whether we must call men to come to Christ without Preparation p. 220. Chap. 2. Of denying our own Righteousness p. 223. Personal Righteousness necessary p. 224. Of Reward and worthiness or Merit p. 225. The truth largely opened about merit and reward p. 230. Reasons for it p. 232 c. Ch. 3. Whether our own Righteousness conduce to our Justification Or we are any way justified by it p. 238. Ch. 4. Whether the Gospel be a Law of Christ p. 243. Ch. 5. Whether Christ and not we be the only party in Covenant with God p. 245. Ch. 6. Whether the new Covenant have conditions p. 247. Ch. 7. Whether justifying faith be a believing in Christ as Teacher Ruler c. or only a receiving his Righteousness p. 251. Ch. 8. Of Faiths Justifying Instrumentally p. 251. Ch. 9. Whether Faith it self be Imputed for Righteousness p. 252. Ch. 10. Whether it be a change in God to justifie the before unjustified p. 256. Ch. 11. Whether a justified man should fear becoming unjustified ibid. Ch. 12. Of mans power to believe and our calling the unregenerate to Duty p. 258. Ch. 13. Of the witness of the Spirit and of Evidences of Justification p. 261. The Conclusion The twelfth days Conference with a learned Lutherane Whether the difference among Christians about Merit be as great as some think it p. 263. Some Protestants and the late Lecturers Reasons against Merit proposed p. 265. and the case opened Of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent p. 266 c. Of condignity p. 267. The Doctrine of Vega Scotus Waldensis Eckius Marsilius Bellarmine Greg. Armin. Durand Brugens Cusanus Stapleton Bradwardine Soto Bonaventure st Clara and all the Schoolmen as he judgeth Carthus Cassander p. 270. Holiness and Glory a greater gift than Glory without holiness p. 271. Aquinas judgment His confusion occasioned by his opinion that the new Law is that which is in the heart and not written viz. the Spirit as the Quakers hold ib. Vasquez denyeth Commutative Justice in God with all the School Doctors 17 of them cited He confuteth it even as to Christ He denyeth proper Distributive Justice also in God citing Bonavent Scotus Durand Palud Gabriel Alexand. Aquin. c. p. 272 c. Aquinas sense in Carbo's words p. 275. Many Schoolmen deny as much as Legal or Governing Justice in God Ruiz citeth for this Argent Bassol Suarez Pesant Suarez saith God's promises are but naked Assertions declaring his Will Durand that promises signifie not obligation Greg. Armin. That the Crown is no Debt but of free Ordination Marsil That God is no Debtor but free Giver Scotus Major Ricard deny God to be a Debtor by his promise but hold that Merits are such by Promise Ruiz saith against Suarez That Promises are more than Assertions but that God's obligation is to himself p. 276. Medina against Meriting Remission p. 277. Against Preparation p. 277. Contarenus judgment Fisher's of Rochester p. 278. The words of Tolet p. 280. The thirteenth days Conference with a Sectary Of the great errors sin and danger which many Ignorant Professors fall into on the pretence of abhorring and avoiding Popery p. 283. The sins of such as Calumniate sound Teachers as favouring Popery p. 285. Errors vended by some Protestants through an injudicious opposition to
never read that any mans damnation was any whit the more increased for not performing these acts And again page 170. It is true there is a Faith infused by the Spirit of God in regeneration But who ever said that any man was damned because he doth not believe with such a Faith As much as to say that non-regeneration is the meritorious cause of damnation C. I am amazed at this especially his supposing that no man ever said that which I thought no man of us had denied B. I would think that his meaning is that men are not condemned for want of Gods infusing act but their own believing act or for the privation of Infusion but for the privation of Faith or of Faith not quatenus infused but as they ought to have believed without infusion But he was not so wanting in accurateness but that he knew how to have exprest himself had that been his meaning And then I know not how his words will consist with this sense I never read that any mans damnation was the more increased for not performing these acts where changing their own hearts is one And whoever said that any man was damned because he did not believe with such a Faith Here it is the Faith as such which is supposed spoken of the privation whereof is not the meritorious cause of damnation And indeed though the power of this Faith would have been in us had there been no Sin or Saviour yet there would have been no obligation to believe in Christ as Mediator And therefore if the Law of Innocency had stood alone even the want of an acquired Faith in Christ would have been no sin But this is the unhappiness of such as must read Controversial Writings There is no end of searching after the Writers meaning But the thing it self I think is plain c. that only an effectual special Faith will save us and it is such a Faith of which Christ speaketh Mat. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned though he believe with any other Faith whatsoever which he calleth acquired Perhaps this his opinion hath some dependance on what he saith before ibid. He punisheth the disobedient with eternal death True but according to what Covenant Not according to the Covenant of Grace that is only a Covenant for Salvation but according to the Covenant of the Law the Covenant of Works Woful error and confusion The Covenant of the Law is almost as bad a phrase as the Covenant of the Covenant 1. Gods Law of Innocency was a Law and Covenant in several respects 2. So was the Jewish Law which Paul meaneth by the Law of Works 3. So is the Christian Law of Christ and of Grace No man is now condemned by the Jewish Law of Works as such it being ceased and never did it bind the Gentile world The Law of Nature and of Innocency indeed condemneth the disobedient but the Law or Covenant of Christ or of Grace doth condemn them to much sorer punishment Luke 19. 27. Those mine enemies that would not I should reign c. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not shall be damned Heb. 10. 29. Mat. 25. throughout But this confounding of the Covenants I must not here rectifie But yet I hope he meant only that men suffer not for want of Gods Regenerating Infusing Act but for want of their own act of Faith The fifth Crimination C. I find Dr. Twisse ibid. alibi saepe charging it on them as holding that Grace is given according to Works which is Pelagianism For they think that God looketh at some preparation in the Receiver and giveth it to some because they are prepared for it and denieth it to others because they are unprepared whereas it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in him that of his meer good pleasure sheweth mercy B. There is enough said of this after about differencing and effectual Grace But if we must say more I ask you Quest. 1. Do you by this phrase according to Works mean to urge the Scripture that speaketh in that phrase in its proper sense or do you Vulgatum illud facientâ— quod in se est Deus non denegat Gratiam intelligitur de faciente â—â— gratia auxilie Pet. â— S. Joseph Thes Univers de auxil pag. 83. Idem pag. 90. Nequidem ipsius Christi opera fuerunt actu meretoria citra promissiâ—nem Dei usi ex se essent valoris inâ—â—â—iti which needeth explication only use the phrase in some other sense of your own C. I use Scripture phrase in Scripture sense because I rest on its Authority B. Quest 2. Are we not also saved without Works in Scripture sense And would it be contrary to Paul to say we that we are saved by Works yea or according to them in that sense that he speaketh of them See James 2. 14 c. Tit. 3. 5. Ephes 2. 5 8 9. Gal. 3. 2. 5. 10. Acts 15. 11. c. and 16. 31. Rom. 5. 10 And yet saved according to Works in another sense James 2. 14 c. Phil. 2. 12. Gal. 6. 4. Rom. 20. 12 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. C. In several senses of Works we deny it not B. Quest 3. At least you will grant that we are not justified by Works and yet that we are justified by Faith yea in another sense by Works Quest 4. Is not believing and repenting in order to Justification and all holy obedience in order to Salvation as truly opâ—â— a work and in a far nobler sense than preparation for Faith is C. That cannot be denied B. Then you cannot affirm that the phrase not according to Workâ— which excludeth not Faith Repentance holy Obedience to justification and salvation doth intend the exclusion of all preparation in order to Conversion or Faith in Christ when by Works excluded it meaneth the same thing or sort in all C. But saith Dr. Twisse ibid. page 154. Pardon and Salvation God doth confirm only on condition of Faith and Repentance But â—â— for Faith and Repentance doth God confer them conditionally also If so whatsoever be the condition let them look to it how they can avoid the making of Grace to wit the Grace of Faith and Repentance to be given according to Works B. I know he frequently saith the same But 1. I speak now only of the sense of that Scripture and say that this goeth upon a most false and dangerous supposition that Justification and Salvation are given according to Works though Faith and Repentance be not whereas in the sense of Works there meant by Paul no man can be justified by Works And though Christ saith This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom the Father hath sent yet it is not that which Paul meaneth Let not therefore Scripture words be abused to mislead mens understandings 2. But as to the matter of the Controversie I spoke to it enough
reason to vex himself with any such fears as consist not with a life of greater hope and peace and comfort And that living by faith on Christ and his Spirit and General promise they should comfortably Trust him with their souls 5. It 's granted that the more Faith Love Holiness and obedience any hath the nearer they may come to full assurance of persevering and may live the more confident and joyful lives 6. Many with Austin hold an Antecedent absolute special Election to faith and perseverance and that no such elect ones fall away 7. Many hold that besides Election a degree of Grace called Confirmation doth settle some in a certainty of perseverance and neither the Elect nor Confirmed fall away And that the confirmed may be certain of their own election perseverance and salvation And this seemeth to be the opinion of Origen Macarius and divers Antients Even that God doth with Believers as he did with the Angels and Adam to whom he would have given confirming Grace had he at first overcome And where faith hath kindled so much LOVE to God and Heaven and Holiness as that it is become a Divine nature in the soul and operateth as the Love of Children to Parents above meer Reason as a fixed Habit like a nature then Grace seemeth to some Confirmed and not loseable All these Concessions laid together and more which I could fetch from the most learned Schoolmen do shew that though here the difference be real it is in a point and a degree where humane frailty and the difficulty and the non-necessity of a fuller understanding it do fully prove to all sober self-knowing loving believers that it is their duty to bear with one another without the quenching of brotherly Love or denying Christian-communion to each other But the wicked will do wickedly and none of the wicked will understand but the wise shall understand Dan. 12. 10. The Eleventh Dayes CONFERENCE Of Christs Righteousness imputed of Faith Justification and mans duty their several parts to a Christians Comfort Speakers Saul Paul a Libertine Teacher CHAP. I. S. SIR I am now come to you in a greater straight than I was in before I have met with a Teacher that tells me you are a deceiver and have all this while misled me and have taught me to build upon the sand of my own Righteousness and set me on doing to my own undoing and that I have not built on the Righteousness of Christ and therefore all will end in my overthrow and ruine I was not able to answer him And I have prevailed with him to come to you that I may hear you speak together P. Did not I tell you before-hand of such temptations and give you instructions for your preservation against them S. I confess you did But I find my self insufficient to use them without help when it comes to tryal P. The truth is Infant Christians will still need the help of their Elders and of Christs Ministers when they have been never so well fore-armed as you need a Physicion in your sickness after all the preventing directions which he can give you And you have done well to bring him and to hear both sides together Had you trusted to your own understanding and only disputed it out privately with himself you might have been enfnared to your danger I shall willingly conferr with him on these two conditions 1. That you remember that it is You and not Him that I am to satisfie and therefore when I have satified you I have done For to follow him as long as he will talk will waste more time than we have to spare 2. That when you are delivered from this snare you will remember that you must meet with many more such in the world The Anabaptist will say as much to you for his way and the Papist much more for his way And most of them will affright you with the danger of damnation if you turn not to them Therefore when ever you are assaulted by any of them bring them to me and hear us together as you now do Lib. I am sorry to see how you abuse poor souls and build them not on Christ but on themselves What a deal have you said to this man of Doing and of Working and how little of Believing You have set him on tasks of Duty and he thinketh now to Do this and Live and to be saved in his own doings his repenting his praying his keeping the Lords day c. while the poor man knoweth not Jesus Christ and submitteth not to the Righteousness of God You will needs be a Teacher of the Law and bring back poor souls to bondage that Christ may profit them nothing but trusting to their own works and righteousness for life they may fall from grace and be found in their nakedness and sin P. Sir these General exclamations do but tell us that there is something that you differ from us in but tell us not what If you are a lover of truth and will speak to edification tell us distinctly what are the points of our doctrine which you dislike and let us debate them one by one Lib. Among many others the chief are these I. That you must not have men come to Christ till they are prepared II. That you set men on Repenting and Doing and Working for salvation and so teach them to trust in a Righteousness of their own and do not tell them that All Christs Righteousness is ours being imputed to us and that Believing is our Conversion to which you are to call men If they Believe they have a perfect Righteousness in Christ III. That you overthrow the Gospel in making it a Law IV. And you make the new Covenant to be made with us when Christ is the only party in Covenant with God V. And you make the new Covenant to have Conditions and so to be the same with the old VI. You make Justifying faith to be a believing in Christ as a Teacher and Law-giver that you may lead in works and not a meer Believing in him for Righteousness VII You make Faith to justifie as a condition of our performance and not meerly an Instrument of our Justification or apprehending Christ VIII You make faith in it self to be imputed to us for Righteousness and not Christ only the object of faith IX That God is made Mutable by you and forgiveth and justifieth them when they believe whom he did not justifie from eternity X. That a justified man must be afraid lest his sin should unjustifie him again XI You make men think that they are able to believe of themselves XII You call men to Duttes and to Mortification before they believe and are regenerate XIII Instead of the Witness of the Spirit you comfort men by the Evidence of their own holiness and righteousness These with abundance more are the errors by which you corrupt and deceive poor souls P. Because Christ would have his Servants as Teachable as
or Nay to these two questions 1. Do you allow of the use of the word Worthy Lib. Yes because it is in Scripture P. 2. Do you deny it to be true in the sense I have opened that is that we have that worthiness which is nothing but a Moral aptitude for that promised Reward which as to the worth of it is but Gods free gift merited for us by Christ and is only a Fathers Reward as to the ordering of it as our Governour even a Reward of grateful Children Lib. No I cannot deny this sense to be sound P. Then you grant both Name and Thing And are not you ashamed then to have so long traduced and reviled such as hold and say but that which you are forced to justifie and to make poor souls believe that works are cryed up and Christ is injured and mens salvation hazarded by it when yet you confess that all is true in word and sense Lib. But when the Papists abuse such phrases to error though the Scripture use them we must do it sparingly and with caution P. 1. But is that a good reason for you to revile those that use them in the Scripture sense 2. And if you will forsake Scripture words as oft as men misuse them it will be in the power of any Hereticks to drive you from all Scripture phrase by abusing all 3. And how can you more effectually promote Popery than by forsaking Scripture language and leaving it to their possession and use Will not men think then that the Scripture sense is liker to be with them than with you Were it not better for you to hold to the Word of God and only detect and disclaim mens ill expositions of it CHAP. III. Whether our own Righteousness be any way necessary and conducible to our Justification before God Or Whether we are any way justified by it and how far Lib. BUt if I grant you that salvation is the Reward of our own faith and holiness I shall never grant you that we are Righteous by it before God or that it is any part of that Righteousness by which we are justified for that is only the Righteousness of Christ P. I hope you are not willing to wrangle about words not understood Quest 1. Do you think that the words Righteous Righteousness and Justification have but one sense in Scriptures and in our common use Lib. No you proved more before P. Quest 2. If the Devil or Men or a mistaking Conscience should say that you or any Saint is an Infidel or hath no faith how must you be justified against that charge Lib. By denying it and by maintaining that I do believe P. Very good Then faith it self as faith doth so far justifie you And Quest 3. If you be charged to be Impenitent and never to have truly Repented how must you be justified against that charge Lib. By denying it and averring that I did Repent P. So then your Repentance it self must so far justifie you And Quest 4. If you are charged to have been an ungodly person to the last or not to have loved God or your neighbour not to have called on God nor confessed Christ before men nor to have fed clothed and visited him as you could in his members or not to have mortified your fleshly lusts but to have lived after the flesh in murder theft whoredom drunkenness c. What is your righteousness against this accusation Lib. I must defend my self against a lye by denying it to be true I must be so far justified that is vindicated against Calumny by my innocency in those points P. Very good so far then you must be justified by your godliness love obedience mortification innocency and works And what if you be charged as an Hypocrite to have done all that you did in meer dissimulation how must you be therein justified Lib. By denying the charge and appeal to God that I was sincere P. So then your sincerity is so far your justifying righteousness And what if you are charged with Apostasie that you fell from Grace must you not be justified by pleading your Perseverance Lib. These are none of the Justification which the Scripture speaketh of which is only against true accusations and not against false ones P. Say you so What if one be truly accused that he hath no part in Christ and that his sin is unpardoned or that he is under the guilt of damnation by the obligation both of the Old Covenant and the New or that he never truly repented or believed or that he is unsanctified and never sincerely obeyed Christ c. Is this man justifiable Lib. No I say not that all men are justifyable But who ever is Justified in Scripture sense is justified only from a true Accusation P. What is that true Accusation Lib. That he is a sinner and deserveth damnation according to the Law and that he hath no righteousness of his own P. Must he not confess all this to be True if it be True And is not confessing the Guilt which he is accused of contrary to justifying him Do you not see here what Confusion you cast your self into for want of noting the various senses of Justification If by Justifying we mean Making an unjust man just then it is true that he is justified from his Guilt that is he is pardoned and he is justified from the Laws condemnation that is a man condemned by the Law is pardoned and he is justified from his reigning sin that is he is sanctified But this Justification is not opposite to Accusation but to Being unjust But if you speak of Justification by Plea or Sentence it is contrary to Accusation of Guilt And so no man is justified that is not Just or Guiltless in the point of which he is accused God will by no means clear the guilty or justifie the unjust Exod. 34. 7 8. nor say of the wicked Thou art Righteous Prov. 24. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 17. 2. 23. Jer. 11. 20. Rom. 1. 32. 2. 2. But that you are quite mistaken in saying that Scripture never mentioneth Justifying man from a false accusation these and many such Texts shew Rom. 8. 33. Isa 50. 8. Prov. 17. 15. 1 Kings 8. 32. James 2. 21 24 25. Rom. 2. 13. Luke 7. 29. Matth. 11. 19. 12. 37. Isa 43. 9. 26. Luke 10. 29. 16. 15. Deut. 25. 1. Exod. 23. 7 c. And how widely differ you from most Protestant Divines who say that Justification is a Judicial Sentence of God as Judge Though indeed it is of divers sorts Lib. But it is not Scripture Justification unless it be perfect And all that we do is Imperfect To justifie him in some one thing is not Justification by faith but another thing P. 1. No doubt but Scripture mentioneth both particular Justification as to some particular causes and a more large Justification from all things that would damn him in Hell And this latter is the Great Justification by
that we are commanded not only Thankfully to Accept but Thankfully to obey our Lord Redeemer and Saviour Lib. No. P. Quest 3. Date you deny that life or death eternal dependeth on this as a Condition or Moral means and that we shall be judged according to it Lib. No. I deny it not P. Quest 4. Is it not a Law that thus commandeth us and by which we must be judged Lib. Yes If it were no Law there were no duty and sin in belief and unbelief P. Quest 5. Is not a man so far just and justifyable by that Law as he keepeth it and justifyable against the charge of being one that must be Damned by producing the Condition of pardon and life performed Lib. Yes I deny it not P. Quest 6. And doth not the same Law virtually justifie the performer now whom it will justifie as the Rule of Judgement at last Lib. Yes no doubt P. Quest 7. And is not the Name of Righteousness many score times given in Scripture to our own actions done by Grace and measured by the New Covenant Lib. Yes I cannot deny it P. Why then while you deny neither Name nor Thing what wrangle you about And let me plainly tell you that such men as you by indiscreet ever-doing are not the least of Satans instruments to bring the Gospel under scandal and harden the world in Infidelity and the scorn of Christ while you would so describe the Christian Religion as if this were the very heart and summ of it Believe that all the Elect have fulfilled perfectly all Gods Law by another and that Christ did it as personating each of them and therefore no crime of their own is imputable to them nor any kind or degree of Goodness or Righteousness in and of themselves is at least required of God as any means or condition of their present or future justification by their Judge or as having any hand therein As if God were become indifferent what we all are so that Christ be but Righteous for us when as it was Christs grand design to restore lapsed man to God which he doth not only by Relative benefits but by Renewing them to his Image in love and holy obedience Lib. Have you not lately and oft been told that holiness and obedience are necessary now but it is to other Ends than to justifie us as for Cratitude c. P. 1. We easily grant it is for other Ends than Christs Merits were and not to justifie us as they do nor in that Causality They are not to purchase for us a free gift of pardon and life nor the Holy Ghost c. as Christ did 2. But again tell me Hath not Christ a Law that commandeth our obedience to those ends as Gratitude which you mention And is not the keeping that Law a thing that the same Law will so far justifie us for Yea a Condition that life dependeth on And if the Cause in Judgement be Have you kept it or not must you not in that be accordingly Justified or Condemned Give over cavilling against plain necessary truth Lib. By this you will fall in with the Papists who take Justification to be partly by Christs Righteousness and partly by our own and partly in pardon and partly in faith and holiness P. Tell not me of the Names of Papists or any to frighten me from plain Scripture truth 1. Why may not I rather say Why go you from all the antient Writers and Churches even Augustine himself by your new and contrary opinion Was true Justification unknown for so many hundred years after the Apostles 2. The most zealous Antipapists do confess that some Texts of Scripture do so take the word Justification And multitudes of Texts so take the words Righteous and Righteousness And he that will impartially consider them may find that more Texts than are by us so confessed do by Justifying mean Making us Just and so Accounting us on all these causes conjunct 1. As being Redeemed by Christs Merits 2. And freely pardoned 3. And having Right to life 4. And renewed to Gods love and Image 5. And so justifyable at the Bar of Grace by the Law of faith and liberty 3. And the reality of all the Matter of this Doctrine is past doubt if the Controversie de nomine Justificationis were not so decided CHAP. IV. Whether the Gospel be a Law of Christ Lib. III. YOu bring in your doctrine of personal Righteousness to Justification by feigning Christ to have made a new Law whereas the Gospel is but a Doctrine History and Promise and not a Law and so no Rule of Righteousness and Judgement And this many Protestants have asserted P. I have read some such sayings in some men And some I think meant no more but that Christ did only expound and not add to the Law of Nature called by them the Moral Law And these I have excused for their unhappy kind of expression But for the rest that mean as the words sound universally they subvert Christianity and as the Arrians denyed Christs Godhead so do they his Office and Government and are somewhat worse than the Quakers who say that the Spirit within us is the Law and Rule of Christ which is better than none I pray answer me Quest 1. Is Christ the King and Ruler of the Church Lib. Yes P. Quest 2. Is not Legislation the first and principal part of Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 3. Do not they then that deny Christs Legislation deny his Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 4. Is it not essential to Christ as Christ the name signifying Relatively his Office to be King Lib. Yes P. Quest 5. Do they not then by this deny Christ to be Christ Lib. No for they confess that he hath a Law but not that he made any since his birth P. We grant 1. That the Law of Nature now is His Law 2. And that the first Edition of the Law of Grace to Adam after the fall was his Law 3. And Moses Law was partly his But you will not say that we are under this last nor I hope that he hath no other than the two first Lib. Why what other can you prove P. It is the Name or the Thing that you deny for you use to confound the cases 1. Whether the name be fit judge by these Texts Gal. 6. 2. Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the Law of Christ James 1. 25. The perfect Law of Liberty Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus c. Rom. 3. 27. Boasting is excluded By what Law Of Works Nay but by the Law of faith Mic. 4. 2. For the Law shall go out of Zion c. So Isa 2. 3. 8. 16 20. 42. 41. The Isles shall wait for his Law 1 Cor. 9. 21. We are under the Law to Christ Heb. 8. 10 16. I will put my Laws into their minds and hearts James 4. 12. There is one Law-giver c. Isa 33.
not by such talk as this believe either that God Rewardeth himself or that he Rewardeth not us But we easily grant that he rewardeth us for nothing which cometh not from his free bounty For no creature can have any other good 2. But if Faith and Love and Obedience be not commanded to us but only given us then they are no Duties but Gifts only and unbelief hatred of God and disobedience is no sin nor brings no punishment Lib. At least they are no Conditions of the Covenant P. Do you think that they are any proper Means of our Justification and Salvation as their End or not Lib. Yes I dare not say that they are no means at all Faith and Repentance are Means of our Pardon and Holiness and Perseverance of our Glorification P. What sort of means do you take them to be Lib. They are such Gifts of God as in order must go before Salvation P. Going before signifieth only Antecedency and not any Means Lib. One Gift maketh us fit for a thankful improvement of another P. This speaketh them only to be a Means to our Thankful improvement and not to our Right to the things to be improved Lib. I do not think that they are a means of our Right or title P. Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have Right to the tree of life c. Lib. It may be translated that wash their garments and that they may have power upon as Dr. Hammond noteth P. 1. The Alexandrian Copy which giveth him this occasion is singular and not be set against all other though the Vulgar Latin go the same way Beza who yet thinks that a transposition of two Verses hath darkned these Texts this Book being negligently used because many for a time took it not for an Apostolical Writing or Canonical yet saith that it is contra omnium Graecorum codicum fidem that the Vulgar goeth 2. But all 's one in sense For to wash their Garments is to be sanctified or purified from sin and not only from guilt of punishment And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth such a Power as we call Authority oâ— Right usually But what maketh you deny Conditions on mans part Lib. Because 1. It is supposed that a condition is profitable to him that requireth it 2. It is some Cause of the benefit 3. It is to be done by the performers own strength whereas God giving â—s Faith that can be no condition on our part which is first a Gift from him that requireth it For to give it first maketh it no condition of ours P. Here we see what it is to quarrell about ambiguous Words No one of these is true that you say of the common nature of a condition or at least as we mean by that word 1. Civilians define a Condition to be Lex addita negotio qua donec praestetur eventum suspendit As it is Required it is only Modus promissionis donationis vel contractus as Performed it is only a Removal of an Impediment and a Disposition of the Receiver So that as the Non-performance is but the suspension of a Causation so the performance of a Condition as such is no Cause efficient But it is dispositio subjecti which you may call a necessary Modus of a Material Cause as the Recipient may improperly be called Dr. Twisse therefore calleth faith Caâ—sa justificationis dispositiva 2. So it be an act of our own it is no way necessary that it be done without the Commanders help or gift For he that giveth us to believe doth give it by this means even by commanding it and making it a Condition of his further benefits that so he may induce us as rational free agents to perform it ex intuitu mercedis or by the motive of the end or benefit For he causeth it by suitable means And no doubt but faith and the rest are free acts of ours though caused by Gods grace 3. And it is accidental to a Condition that it be any way commodious to the Imposer What profit is it to a Father that his Child put off his Hat and say I thank you And yet he may make that a condition of his gift What profit is it to a free Physicion that the Patient observe his order in taking his Medicines And yet he may give them on that condition But yet I will add that as usually men make that the condition of a Gift or Contract which the person obliged is backward else to perform and that which is somewhat either for the Donor or Contracters Interest or the Ends of his contract so God who taketh his Glory and Pleasure in his Childrens Good to be as his Interest and the End of his Gifts and knoweth how backward we are to our duty doth on these accounts impose on us our duty and conditions his Pleasure and Glory being instead of his Commodity But if If be a conditional Particle and if Gods suspending by the tenour of his Donation our Right to Justification upon our free believing and our Right to Salvation on our free obedience do prove Conditionality as it doth all that we mean then you see that the new Covenant hath conditions Lib. Doth not God promise us the first Grace even to take the hard heart out of our bodies and give us hearts of flesh and new hearts c. And I pray what condition can the first grace have unless you will run in infinitum to seek Conditions of Conditions P. 1. This is a Cause of great moment of which I have my self had darker thoughts than now I have 1. If one Benefit of the Covenant have no Condition viz. the first will it follow that none of the rest are given upon condition May not God in Baptism give us a Right of special Relation to the Father Son and Holy Ghost his Love Grace and Communion Pardon Adoption and Glory on condition of Faith and Repentance and yet himself give us that Faith and Repentance which is the condition of the rest 2. But upon fuller consideration it will appear that It is not the first Grace that those promises mean by a new and soft heart For who ever will examine them shall find that the Texts mention Conditions and also antecedent Grace And indeed A new and soft heart is but the same thing which the New Testament calleth Sanctification And yet that Sanctification is promised as consequent to Faith as its condition And our ordinary Divines do accordingly distinguish of Vocation and Sanctification holding that in Vocation the Act of Faith and Repentance are caused by Gods Grace before proper Habits and that Sanctification is the Habits specially of Love and Holiness following them vid. Ames Medull de Vocat Rolloc de Vocat Hookers Souls Vocat Humil. Rogers of Faith c. And this is the new and fleshy heart But what need we more to prove that Covenant Conditional which I mean when it is nothing
believe and accept the gift So that it is only Meriting under a Law made by a Governing Owner and Benefactor for the sapiential orderly disposal of a free Gift As a Father will teach a Child Obedience by telling him that he will give him Gold or Meat if he will thankfully accept it 9. It is not true therefore that it is only a free Gift For as it is a free Gift in regard of the Value and quoad rem so that Gift is a Reward in regard of the Order of Conveyance and tenour of the Donation and the moral capacity of the Receiver which men call Merit 10. That we cannot per impotentiam voluntariam moralem perform the Condition without Divine Grace is nothing against the Tenour of the Donation nor the nature of the Relation of a Reward 11. But Reward and Merit in this case are furthest from that of Commutation and leaveth least to man to boast of 12. Yet may he truly glory in the effects of Grace with thankfulness to God as Paul did 2 Cor. 1. 11 12. that in simplicity and godly sincerity c. and 2 Tim. 4. 8. that he had fought a good fight c. And he may justifie his sincerity with Job chap. 13. 15 16. And Christ will say Well done good and faithful servant c. Let him that glorieth glory in this that he knoweth me saith the Lord c. And Paul would rather dye than any should make his glorying void as to his free preaching the Gospel 13. And it is very false that in this sense a Christian is not bound to trust to his Faith Repentance Love Obedience only in their own place and office assigned them by God but no further As we may trust to the Bible Preacher Parents so to hearing reading praying c. for their proper part else we shall take them all to be in vain Are they Means or no Means If Means they must be judged and trusted as they are and no further And people are not to be frightned from necessary truth by putting an ill sense upon words 14. And though here be nothing of Commutative Justice yet there is that which Justifieth the name of Wages used analogically in the Scriptures Because Love in a Father maketh a Childs interest to be partly his own and the Pleasure of his Will is that to God who is Love it self and delighteth in his Childrens good which Profit is to a humane proprietor And now I will proceed with you in my Questions Quest 9. Do you think that Papists or Arminians do believe that either Man or Angel or Christ can merit of God by Profiting him in Commutative Justice Or that it is possible for any creature to have any Good which is not the free gift of God supposing man a free agent in his duty L. I have hitherto thought that they so judge Why else talk they of Merit of Congruity and Condignity and that say some ex dignitate yea and ex proportione operum R. It seemeth you think not that you hold all this your self Let us try 1. By Merit they still mean a subordinate Merit which supposeth the Benefit 1. To be Gods Gift 2. Merited by Christ L. How prove you that R. It is the express words of the Trent Council de Justif Can. 8 We are said to be Justified gratis because nothing that goeth before Justification whether it be Faith or Works doth merit the Grace it self of Justification For if it be Grace it is no more of Works else Grace is not Grace Can. 16. Though so much be given in Scripture to Good Works that Christ promiseth him that giveth but a Cup of cold Water to one of the least that he shall not lose his reward yet far be it from a Christian to trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord whose Goodness is so great to all men that he wills those things to be Their Merits which are His Gifts And Anath C. 26. they thus open their Doctrine of Merit If any say that the Righteous ought not to expect eternal retribution from God by his Mercy and Christs Merits for the good works done in God if by well doing and keeping God Commandments they persevere to the end let him be Anathema C. 31 32. If any say that a Justified mans good works are so Gods Gifts that they be not also the Justified mans good merits or that the Justified do not truly merit increase of grace and life eternal by the good works which are done by Gods Grace and Christs Merit of whom he is a living member c. Anath sit C. 16. To them therefore that do well to the end and hope in God Life eternal is to be proposed both as Grace mercifully promised to the Sons of God through Jesus Christ and as a Reward faithfully to be given by Gods own promise to their Works and Merits L. Yes this ridiculous Doctrine of our Meriting by Gods Grace and Christs Merits I have often read and heard of in them R. It is somewhat bold to deride that which Scripture Reason and all the antient Churches do accord in That Christ merited that we should subordinately merit that is be Rewardable as before explained hath no less consent And Contra Rationem nemo fobrius Contra Scripturam nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo Catholicus L. But if the Council of Trent deny that Justification is at all merited what is meant by the Papists Merit of Congruity R. II. I think you hold not only as much of that as they but do you think it somewhat more 1. As much For 1. De nomine some of them deny that this is any merit at all as well as you And their Council asserteth it not that I see 2. De re They mean the same thing by Merit of Congruity which Mr. Rogers Bolton Hooker and the rest call Preparation for Christ or for Conversion And so the Council of Trent calls it Which maketh a man a more Congruous Receiver of Grace than the unprepared but doth not prove God obliged to give it him as a Reward And do not you hold all this de re 2. Yea and more For the Council of Trent taketh Justification for Remission of sin and sanctification together as after Faith And so hold that Faith it self doth not merit Justification But do not you hold more de re that Faith hath a flat promise of Justification which is true And so God hath as it were obliged his fidelity to give it which is it they mean by Merit L. But what is their Merit of Condignity then Is not that abominable R. III. 1. You know that the words Worthy and Worthiness are used in the Scripture Bear therefore with Scripture words 2. And de re they mean not all one thing or use not the same expressions at least Some and many with Scotâ—â— say that it is ex pacto from Gods Promise that the Merit and dueness do result or from Gods
as those as that Accusations against adversaries are to be believed without proof on one side and not on the other Gods Rule against receiving evil reports will be cast out and Charity and Justice will be cast away and meer siding and saction will possess the place And then all the question will be Who are those Accusers that are to be believed And if you think that it is your Teachers the Papists that have many more will think that they have more reason to believe them And â—â— the Anabaptists will believe theirs and the Separatists theirs and the Quakers theirs and what falshood and evil will not then be believed against all parties and how odious will they appear to one another and consequently all Christians to Infidels and Heathens L. A man that is set upon a sodering design may palliate any Heresie in the world and put a fair sense on the foulest words but God hateth such cloaking of sin and complyance with it R. May not Papists Familists Seekers Quakers and all Sects say the same against Concord and Complyance with you I pray you tell me what you think of these following words before you know who wrote them and take heed what you say of them lest you strike you know not whom Quest How is Justification free seeing faith and repentance are required to it Answ There are two answers given One is from Augustines doctrine Epist 105. the summ is As Justification is taken inclusively taking in Faith and Repentance as its beginning it is free because faith is free But as it is taken narrowly for Justification following faith that is for Remission of sin and Reconciliation with God it is merited by faith But the other solution I more approve and it seemeth more agreeable to Scripture to wit that even Remission of sin it self and Reconciliation with God are given freely no Merit of ours going before and that neither by faith nor repentance we do merit the gift of this grace For understanding of which Note that Faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is our act to Remit or Reconcile but all the Vertue proceedeth from the object it self that is Christ whoâ—e Vertue and Merit God hath determined to apply to a sinner for his justification by faith in him And what I say of Faith I say of Repentance and other dispositions as in the example of them that looked to the Brazen Serpent who were healed by looking not that looking as it was an act of the eye had such a healing force but the efficaâ—y was from the Serpent which God had appointed for the Ioure So we say of Faith which hath not in its nature and from its entity any power to Remit and Reconcile but as the Vertue of Christ doth this in believers And so I answer that If Faith justified as an act and of it self Justification were not free But so it doth not but is a Mediâ—m by Gods good pleasure by which the Vertue of Christ Justifieth believers therefore faith or repentance make it not lâ—ss free â— g. I give a Beggar a gift He puts forth his hand and taketh it If one tell me Thou gavest it not freely because he took it or else had not had it it were a ridiculous objection For putting forth the hand doth not of it self bring him a gift else every time that he puts forth his hand it would bring in a gift But it is from the vertue and bounty of the giver So is it as to faith and the dispositions by which the vertue of Christ and the free mercy of God do give Remission and Reconciliation to believers and disposed persons so that it taketh not away Christs Merit nor maketh Grace less free that faith or these dispositions are asserted L. I know not how much men may mean worse than they speak but these words are such as the best Protestants use R. They are the words translated of the aforesaid Fr. Tolet a Jesuit and Cardinal on Rom. 3. pag. 157 158 159. But still remember that by Justification they mean the holy effect of the Spirit on the soul and indeed by Remission of sin they most commonly mean the destroying or mortifying sin within us and ceasing to commit the act And they are dark and confused in these matters L. But do not Papists hold forgiveness of deserved punishment R. Yes but they bring it in disorderly and on other occasions But if they did not how could they hold that any sin past from our childhood till Conversion is Remitted or pardoned For the Act is past as soon as done factum infectum fieri non potest and so such past sins can have no remission but forgiving the penalty and healing the effects And wrangling Papists consider not that this is the Remission that Protestants mean who call their kind of Remission by the name of mortification And so we endlesly quarrel about words through our unhappy imperfection in the art of speaking and words being arbitrary signs the world is come to no agreement of their sense L. You confess then their confused Doctrine and you cannot excuse many of their Doctors from gross error herein R. No nor many honest pious persons that go for Protestants What Papists have more plainly subverted the Gospel by their Doctrine on these subjects than many of those called Antinomians have done by the contrary extream And who can justifie all the sentences and phrases of many eminent Divines among us yea or of many of the most wise and accurate For when all are much ignorant who can say I do not err L. But undoubtedly you will be as bitterly censured for these your favourable interpretations of the Papists in the point of Merit as if you were half a Papist your self and were but such a Mongrel as Erasmus Wicelius Cassander or Grotius or as if your Conciliatory designs would carry you as far at last as Grotius Mileterius Baldwin or at least as Mountague Guil. Forbes and such others went And others will then say that you are justly served for writing so much against Grotius and his followers on this account as you have done of which Bishop Bramhall and his Epistoler have already told you R. Truth honesty and Gods approbation change not as mens interests minds or tongues do Time will come that Truth will be more regarded when Love and Peace are to be revived unless God will forsake this contentious and unrighteous World And I am so near so very near that World where there is nothing but Truth Love and Righteousness and where God is All and the Fulness and felicitating object of holy souls and where the censures of men are of no signification that I am utterly unexcusable if I should betray the Cause of Truth Love and Concord to avoid the obloquy of men who speak evil of the things which they never understood The Thirteenth Dayes CONFERENCE Of the great errours sin and danger which many Ignorant Professours fall
to sin entertained we must go as far from sin as we can But poor deceived souls run into it under the conceit of going far enough from it and sometimes into greater than they avoid S. What sin have such Protestants run into in their opposition to Popery P. I will tell you some I. In Doctrine and II. In the consequentâ— and practice I. It is more than one injudicious Protestant Divine that hath printed such unfound Opinions as these in opposition to Popery for want of judgement 1. While they plead against the Romish false Tradition they have weakned faith by denying that necessary use of Historical Tradition of Scripture which Christianity doth suppose As others have denyed the necessary use of Reason unto faith 2. They have wronged the Church by undervaluing the Tradition of the Creed and the Essentials of Christianity by many means besides the Scriptures 3. They have much wronged the Protestant Cause by denying the perpetual Visibility of the Church and almost given it away as I have shewed against Johnson 4. And their dâ—nyal of its Universality and confining it long to the Waldenses and such others is an exceeding injury to the Church and Truth 5. And so is some mens over-doing as for the Scripture who teach men that they can be no surer of Christianity as delivered many years in Baptism before any of the New Testament was written than they are that there is no one error in all the Bible by the carelesness of the Scribes and Printers nor any humane frailty in the phrase 6. And also their feigning the Scripture perfection to consist in its being a particular determiner of all those circumstances of which it is only a general rule 7. And those that make every form of prayer or Ceremony to be Antichristian 8. And those that make Justifying faith to be a certainty or full perswasion that we are elected and pardoned and shall be saved 9. And those that say that To believe that I am justified is to believe Gods Word or â—ides divina either as most say because one of the premises is in Scripture or as excellent Chamier saith because the Witness of the Spirit is Gods Word 10. And those that say All that have true faith are sure they have such as Keckerman and too many others 11. Those that deny Christ to have made any Law 12. And those also that assert Imputation of Christs Righteousness in that sense which I have proved to subvert the Gospel 13. And those that deny Faith it self to be Imputed for righteousness 14. And those that deny that there is any personal Evangelical Righteousness in our selves that is any way necessary to our Justification 15. And those that lay all the stress of Faiths Justifying us on the notion of Instrumental efficiency 16. And those that say we are Justified by no act of faith but its receiving Christs Righteousness and all other acts of faith are the Worâ—s by which none is justified 17. And those that say that Evangelical obedience is not meritorious as it signifieth only Rewardable in point of Paternal Evangelical Governing Justice and as all the antient Fathers used that word because we merit not by Commutation 18. And those that say that man hath no free-will at all of any sort to spiritual good 19. And those that say that Christ was in Gods reputation the greatest sinner or wicked man Adulterer Murderer hater of God in all the world 20. And those that say that he suffered in soul Pain altogether of the same kind with those that the damned suffer in Hâ—â— 21. And those that in opposition to the Popish Government Confession Austerities and several acts of Worship do run into the conâ—rary extream against due Government Confession Austerities c. And those that from dark uncertainty or à minus notiâ— do gather many conclusions against known truth I pass by such as the Antinomians who as I have proved subveâ—t the Gospel it self by running into the contrary extream from Popeâ—â—â— S. You are as â—ad as Parker or the Debate-maker that thâ—s lâ—y sâ—â—ndal on the Reformers themselves If these were their faults you â—â—â—â— cover them and not open them This had been enough for â— Romish Râ—bshakeh P. You know not what it is that you say This is to aâ—hoâ—â—â—â—â—â—tance and to preferr the honour of man before the honour of God yea to let the shame be cast on Gods Word and Religion lest the erroâ— of â—â—â—â— be shamed But all men are lyars that is fallible and God is â—â—â—â— He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy but he that hideth it shall not prosper Are there not with you even with you also saith the Prophet sins against the Lord our God Why hath God recorded in Scripture the faults of so many of his servants and fomeâ— them to such open Confessions Did Paul wrong Peter and â—â—â—â— Gal. â— or the Ministry when he said All seek their own thingâ— and noâ—e the things of Jesus Christ or did the Evangelists wrong all â—he Disciples by saying that They all forsook him and fled or James all Câ—â—stians saying In many things we offend â—ll I think the Prouâ— Impeâ—itence of many Professors that will not confess sin nor endure to be â—â—led to it lest Religion be dishonoured is that great dishonour to Religion which God hath been long punishing us for When such evils have â—â—â—â— held and done as our age hath known either it must be said that they are not evil or that they are If we deny it and say they are God â—â—â—â— and mâ—ns duty we feign God and Scripture and Religion to be for all that evil which is to blaspheme If we say It is evil we must saâ—â— that we are the guilty causes of it God will teach Ministers and Professors instead of Pharisaical self-justification to take open shame to themselves that he and Religion may be vindicated before he will deliver us from shame and sorrow And he that will save his honour against this shame shall lose it and he that will thus lose it and cast it away shall most effectually recover it S. I think you would fain perswade us that Protestants are as bad as Papists and perswade us into the Roman Tents P. That is but your pievish inference But little do you know how much of Popery it self you have while you think that you hate it more than I. S. You would make me believe any thing if you make me think that I have more of Popery than you P. 1. Do not you agree with them in consining the Catholick Church to one Sect or Party only They to their Sect and You to yours 2. Do you not agree with them in your vehement condemnation of dissenters only they excommunicate and burn them and you deny them your communion and reproach them But their charity extendeth much further than yours and you condemn more dissenters than they do 3. Do you not agree with them in
against those things which their ignorance misrepresenteth to themselves And so Gods ordinances are made a snare to souls which are appointed for their salvation and the man that can kindle in his hearers a transporting passion against this or that opinion or form as Popish is cryed up for an excellent preacher and seemeth to edifie the people while he destroveth them 11. And by this means you seem to justifie the Papists lyes and calumnies against the Protestants by doing as they do They belye Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza c. with just such intentions and such a kind of zeal as some over doing Sectaries belye them And is it bad in them and good in you 12. You teach the people a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning à minùs notis which will let in almost any errours From a dark text in the Revelations or Daniel or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist and all Papists have received the mark of the beast you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace which the light of nature doth commend to all Not that I am perswading you that the Pope is not Antichrist but that all things be received but according to their proper degree of evidence S. Now you open your self indeed All that revolt to Popery begin there with questioning whether the Pope be the Antichrist and telling men of the darkness of the Book of Revelations P. I tell you I will abate no certainty that you have but increase my own and yours if I could but I would not have any falsly to pretend that they are certainer of any thing than they are And no certainty can go beyond the ascertaining evidence And if all Scriptures be equally plain St. Peter was deceived that tells us of many things hard to be understood which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction And if the Revelations be not one of the hardest I crave your answer to these questions 1. Why are five Expositors usually of four opinions in the expounding of it when it is those that have spent much of their lives in studying it as Napier Brightman c. who are the Expositors 2. Why will none of you that find it so easie at last write one certain Commentary which may assure which of all the former if any one of them was in the right 3. Why did Calvin take it to be too hard for him and durst not venture to expound it 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture Surely they were saved without believing it Though no doubt but the book of Revelation is a great mercy to the Church and all men should understand as much of it as they can But all that I blame you for here is the perverting of the order of proof in arguing à minùs notis 13. And these over-doers that run things into the contrary extreams do most injuriously weaken the Protestant cause by disabling themselves and all men of their principles to defend it and arming the Papists against it by their errors When it cometh to an open dispute by Word or Writing one of these mens errors is like a wound that lets out blood and spirits and puts words of triumph into the adversaries mouth A cunning Papist will presently drive the ignorant disputant to resolve his cause into his mistake and then will open the falshood of that and thence inferr the falshood of all the rest And what an injury is that to the souls of the auditors who may be betrayed by it and to the cause it self For instance If one of our over-doers hold that we are reputed to have kept all the Law of Innocency and merited salvation our selves by Christ or that no act of faith is Justifying but the accepting of his righteousness or that faith Justifieth only as the efficient instrumental cause or that we have no righteousness which hath any thing to do in our Justification but only Christs imputed Merits or that mans faith Love or obedience are not rewardable c. how easily will a Papist open the falshood of such an opinion to the hearers and then tell them that they may see by this who is in the right And alas what work would one Learned Papist make in London by publick disputing if we had no wiser men to deal with him than these over-doers They may call Truth and Sobriety Antichristian and talk nonsence as against Popery successfully to their own party but I hope never to see the cause managed by their publick disputes lest half the Congregation turn Papists on it at once If Chillingworth had not been abler to confute a Papist than those that used to calumniate him as Popish or Socinian he had done less service of that kind than he did 14. And it is an odious injury that these Over-doers do to the ancient and the universal Church while in many cases they ignorantly or wilfully reproach and condemn them as if they were all the favourers of Popery and call their ancient doctrine and practice Antichristian Some of them ignorantly falsifie the Fathers doctrine and upon trust from their Leaders aver◠that they held that which they plainly contradict and that which they held indeed they cry out against as Popery Such an instance we have newly in a Souldier Major Danvers an Anabaptist which I have detected And will Christ take it well to have almost all his Church condemned as Antichristian 15. And hereby what an honour is done to Popery and what a dishonour to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles and almost all the present Churches were and are against the doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side And yet how many do us this injury and the Roman Church this honour About the nature of Justifying faith and its office to Justification and about the nature of Justification it self and Imputation of Righteousness and free-will and mans Works and Merits and about assurance of salvation and perseverance how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latine Fathers do assert and all the ancient Churches owned and most of all the present Churches in the world And those that call all forms of prayer Popery or the English Liturgie at least when almost all the Christian world have forms and most such as are much worse do but tell men that the Christian world is on the side that they oppose and against their way 16. And it is a crime of infamy to be taken for Separatists from the universal Church And in doctrines and forms of Worship not only to avoid what we take to have been a common weakness but also to condemn them as Antichristian or as holding pernicious errours is but
God do intendere finem and what is his End The Order and Objects opened p. 57. Sect. 16. What Election and Reprobation are The order of the Decrees called Reprobation and of the Objects Of Negations of Decree p. 66. An Additional Explication of Divine Nolitions p. 76. Sect. 17. Whether God Will Decree or Cause Sin Five Acts of God in and about Sin What Sin is Many wayes God can cause the same thing that the sinner causeth and so fulfil his Decrees without Willing or Causing the Sin Objections answered God freely not idlely or impotently restraineth his own possible operations sometimes that he do not such or such an act at all and sometime that he do but so much towards it and no more Whether God be ever Causa partialis p. 84. Sect. 18. A Confutation of Dr. Twisses Digress 5. li. 2. sect 1. Vindic. Gratiae where he asserteth that God Willeth the existence of Sin and that sins are a medium sua natura summe unice conducibile to the Glorification of his Mercy and Justice p. 92. Sect. 19. The same Doctrine in Rutherford de Providentia confuted Whether things be good because God willeth them or willed by him because good resolved Whether there were eternal rationes boni mali Dr. Field vindicated p. 106. Sect. 20. The old Doctrine of Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius thought by some Jesuits too rigid but indeed Conciliatory for absolute Election to Faith and so to Salvation and for no reprobating Decree but only of Punishment for Sin foreseen but not decreed Prosper ad Cap. Gall. Sentent translated p. 115. Sect. 21. The summ of Prospers Answer to Vincent 16. Object p. 118. Sect. 22. Fulgentius words to the same sense p. 121. Sect. 23. The healing Doctrine and Concessions of many called Calvinists of the Synod of Dort Pet. Molinaeus c. p. 124. Sect. 24. And of Petr. á Sancto Joseph Suarez Ruiz c. on the other side especially Bellarmines at large and others p. 127. ERRATA PART 1. pag. 10. l. 38. in marg for Reason Being r. Relation being p. 24. l. 25. r. those Causes l. 26. r. first Case p. 27. l. 2. r. Of predetermination Reader Pain and Greater business forbad me to gather the Errata some are gathered by a Friend out of the first Book many more I must leave to your ingenuity I see in the Premonition p. 4. l. 22. for Mr. W. Mr. D. l. 47. for Armatus Annatus Also Dial. 11. p. 231. l. 30. r. refuse Dial. 13. p. 291. l. 13. for not r. done Catholick Theologie The First BOOK PACIFYING PRINCIPLES Collected from the common Notices of Nature the certain Oracles of GOD in the Holy Scriptures and the common Consent of Christians For the RECONCILING OF THE CHURCH-DIVIDING and DESTROYING CONTROVERSIES especially about PREDESTINATION PROVIDENCE GRACE and FREE-WILL REDEMPTION JUSTIFICATION FAITH MERIT WORKS CERTAINTY OF SALVATION PERSEVERANCE and many others In Three Parts I. Of Gods Nature Knowledge Decrees and Providence about Sin with Mans Free-will as the Objects of the former II. Of Gods GOVERNMENT and MORAL Works III. Of Gods Operations on Mans Soul By RICHARD BAXTER An earnest Desirer of the UNITY LOVE and PEACE of Christians For endeavouring of which he expecteth with resolved Patience still to undergo the Censures Slanders and Cruelties of IGNORANCE PRIDE and MALICE from all that are possessed by the Wisdom and Zeal which are from beneath Earthly Sensual and Devilish the Causes of Confusion and every evil work James 3. 14 15 16. LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in S t. Pauls Church-yard MDCLXXV The First Part OF THE NATURE KNOWLEDGE WILL AND DECREES of GOD As far as is needful to the intended CONCILIATION and CONCORD SECT I. Of our Knowledge of God as here attainable THough it be about the Knowledge Will and Decrees of God that our Controversies are agitated yet because the consequent Verities are scarce ever well understood without the understanding of the Antecedents out of which the Consequents arise and without the just order place and respect which the later have unto the former and unless things be understood in their true Method I will therefore expose my self to the obloquy of those who will call it Over-doing so far as to premise somewhat of the Deity it self But not what is necessary to the full explication of the Divine Attributes as we are capable as must be in a Method of Theologie which I have attempted elsewhere but only so much as lyeth under our Controverted Subject And when I have done that I shall leave the rest Thes 1. To Know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is Life Eternal * * * John 17. 3. Bradward l. 1. c. 11. p. 198. The first necessary incomplex Principle is God and the first complex simply is of God Deus est c. But yet it is not to us the primum cognitum 2. To †††Exodus 20. know GOD is to know his Being Nature and Relations For though those Relations that are to Man be not essential to his Divine Nature yet are they essentially contained in the signification of the name GOD as he is the object of our Faith and Religion For to be OUR GOD doth speak his Relations to us as well as his Nature As the name KING and FATHER doth among men 3. We neither have nor can have here in flesh any one proper formal Conception of the Divine Nature that is formally suited to the truth in the object But only Metaphorical or Analogical Conceptions borrowed from things better known 4. Yet nothing beyond sense at least is so certainly known as GOD so far as we can reach though nothing be less perfectly or more defectively known or less comprehended Even as we know nothing Visible more certainly than the Sun and yet comprehend nothing Visible less 5. It is not true which many great Metaphysicians assert that the Quiddity of God is totally unknown to us For then it could not be life eternal to know him nor would a meer Negative knowledge cause in us a sufficient Positive Love or Joy or Trust c. But to know that we cannot know him would but inferr that we cannot Love him For we Love not an unknown Good 6. Nor is it true that Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza in fine Disput and some others say that the Notions of Life and Intellect are all that we have of the Quiddity of God and that the Divine Will is not a Quidditative notion 7. God is here seen in the Glass of his Works with the Revelation of his Word and Spirit And from these works we must borrow our conceptions * * * The doubt is How Imperfect works can notifie the perfect God And the Schoolmen manage it as an insuperable difficulty Whether God could have made the World or any thing better than it is If you will pardon me for making
getteth a right to any benefit by his fault What then Why the Precept to that man is past into a Virtual Judiciary Sentence condemning him as disobedient even as it is with those in Hell 239. Therefore since the fall the Law of Innocency in it self is the same which once said Thou shalt continue perfectly Innocent but it doth not properly oblige us as a Law to that Innocency or perfection which we were born without because we are become uncapable subjects Much less is that Innocency now the Condition of any Promise or Covenant of God as if he still said Be personally and perpetually Innocent and thou shalt live and that thou maist live But the Law being still the same we that are uncapable of the duty are not uncapable of the guilt and condemnation Vid. Bellarmin de Grat. lib. aâ—b li. 5. per totum c. 30. de dist necessitates And therefore the Law and Covenant are now become a Virtual Sentence of Condemnation for not obeying personally perfectly and perpetually to the death For he that hath once made Innocency Naturally Impossible to him is Virtually in the case of one that hath persevered to the death in sin 240. But if the contracted Impossibility be not Physical but Moral the case is quite different For then the thing is a threefold sin in it self as aforesaid 1. The disabling sin 2. The vicious Disability or Malignity of the Will 3. And the after sin thereby committed and omission of duty More of Physical and Moral Impotency 241. 1. No righteous Law forbiddeth Physical Impotency as such nor commandeth men Physical Impossibilities as is said But Gods Laws primarily forbid the malignity of the Will which is its Moral Impotency Bradwaâ—dine plainly saith li. 3. c. 9. p. 675. that Nullus actus noster est simpliciter in nostra potestate we grant not absolutely and independently sed tantum secâ—ndum quid respectu Caâ—sarum secundarum Nihil est in nostra potestate nisi subactiva subexecâ—tiva subservienâ—e necessariâ— necessitate naturalitâ—r praecedente respectu â—oluntatis divinae Quod ideo in nostra dicitur potestate quia cum volumus iliud facimus voluntarie non inâ—iti So that by him no creature was ever able to do more or less than it doth except you call him able to do it that can do it when God makes him do it but that is not to be able before or when he is not caused to do it 242. 2. Rulers use not to make Punishments for Physical Impotency But for the Wills Malignity God doth 243. 3. Rulers use not to propound Rewards for Physical Impossibilities But for the fruits of Moral Sanctity or Habits and for themselves God doth 244. 4. No just Judge condemneth men for Physical Impotency But for Moral God and man do 245. 5. No Good man hateth another for Physical Impotency But for Moral malignity God and man do 246. 6. An inlightned Conscience accuseth and tormenteth no man for meer Physical Impotency and Impossibilities But for the Wills Malignity Conscience will torment men So that it is evident that one sort of Impotency maketh an act no sin in its degree and the other maketh it a greater sin For Nature and common notices teach men to judge that the More Willingness the more culpability But he that hath Actual and Habitual Wilfulness and is as some Adulterers drunkards revengeful persons proud covetous c. who are so bad that they say I cannot choose are the worst of all the sorts of sinners by such disability 247. It is most probable that God overcometh Moral Impotency and giveth Moral Power by Moral Means and Operations For though God can give it by a proper Creation without Moral Means and we cannot say that he never doth so nor how oft he doth or doth not yet it is most probable that his special Grace doth by his Trine Influx of Power Wisdom and Goodness Life Light and Love suscitate the natural faculties of the soul to the first special Act and by it cause a holy Habit which he radicateth by degrees And this is Metaphorically a Creation 248. This is certain that since the sall we have the same essential faculties that Original sin is not as Illyricus so long and obstinately maintained though an excellently good and Learned man a Substance though it be the Pravity of a substance And that sin changed not the humane species Nor doth Grace change our species It is certain that the Acts of these same natural faculties are commanded to all men even the unregenerate under the names of Faith and Repentance And so these are their duties And it is certain that a Course of Moral means preaching reading meditating conference threatnings promises mercies afflictions are appointed and used to the procuring the said faculties to perform these commanded acts It is certain that these Means have an Aptitude to their end And that God worketh by his own means And appointeth not man to use them in vain And that in working Grace God preserveth and reformeth Nature and worketh on Man as Man and according to the Nature of his means 249. And I think none dare deny but that God is Able by his Spirits powerful operation without any Antecedent new Habit or disposition to set home these same means so effectually on the Natural powers of the soul as shall excite them to the first Acts of Faith and Repentance And by them imprint a Habit as is said and shall be said again in Part 3. And if he Can do so and Can do otherwise which then is likest to be his ordinary way I leave to the observers of Scripture and Experience 450. This is the Common sense of Divines who place Vocation exciting the first act of Faith and Repentance before Union with Christ and before Sanctification which giveth the habit till Mr. Pemble Vind. Grat. taught otherwise whom Bishop G. Downame confuted in the Appendix to his Treatise of Perseverance 251. As to the question How this Grace is called Infused and not Natural I answer It is called Infused and Supernatural because 1. It is not wrought by any Natural-moral means only but by Supernatural-moral means viz. Revelation in and by the Gospel of Christ 2. And this supernatural Revelation cannot work it without the special extraordinary operation and impression by the Holy Ghost above the common concurse of God with all his Creatures as he is fons naturae This the Schools have Metaphorically called Infusion 252. But it may be called Natural 1. In that mans Natural faculties receive Gods Influx 2. And perform the act 3. And are perfected by it as the Natural body is by Health 253. And what the difference is ex parte Dei agentis ex parte effectus between Gods Natural and Gracious operations I shall after open in the third Part. 254. The Schoolmen especially the Scotists and Ockam and many Franciscans Benedictines and other Fryers yea such Oratorians as Gibieuf
37. Sect. IV. Of the Law of Grace or New Covenant in the last Edition The Nature Conditions and yet free Donations of it pag. 42. Sect. V. Of the giving of the Holy Ghost His common and special Works The extent of the New Covenant Of the state of those that have not the Gospel And what Law they are under pag. 45. Sect. VI. How far Christ died for all and how far not pag. 51. Sect. VII The antecedent and consequent Will of God explained Of Justification by Faith What faith it is and what it doth pag. 54. Sect. VIII Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed The false sense of Imputation opened and fully confuted The true sense asserted Whether Christ paid our Idem or Tantundem Whether he made his Satisfaction to God only as to a Rector or as Dominus vel pars laesa or how pag. 59. Sect. IX Of the sorts of Justification And first of constitutive Justification Of Righteousness How far it is or is not in our own habits or acts What Right the Covenant giveth the baptized to following helps and degrees of Grace Further what must be in our selves Mans holiness is no dishonour to Gods Grace How far Christ strippeth us of our own Righteousness More against the false sense of Imputation Objections answered pag. 69. Sect. X. Of Merit The case plainly and briefly decided The Gospel-Condition or Merit is but the accepting a free Gift according to its nature Whether we may trust to our own Faith Repentance Holiness The last Argument for the false sense of Imputation answered pag. 79. Sect. XI How Faith justifieth whether as an Instrument pag. 82. Sect. XII How far Repentance is a Condition of the Covenant And what it is Whether Faith or it be first How Faith and Love differ pag. 83. Sect. XIII Of the degrees of Pardon and Justification Whether losable And whether future sins be pardoned pag. 85. Sect. XIV Of Justification by Sentence of the Judge What it is ibid. Sect. XV. Of initial executive Pardon or Justification in Sanctificatiâ— How far necessary yet imperfect pag. 86. Sect. XVI Of assurance of Pardon Of doubting Whether it be Dâ—â—â— Faith to believe ones own Justification or Salvation The Spâ—â— Testimony pag. 88. Sect. XVII Of love to God as the end of Faith and foretast of Heâ—â—â— pag. 91. Sect. XVIII Of Perseverance and its certainty in order to the comfortâ—â— certainty of Salvation Few certain of Justification and â—â—â—â— of Perseverance The words of the Synod of Dort The â—â— ther 's Judgment about certainty of perseverance pag. 93 Sect. XIX Of mortal Sin or such as will not stand with the love of Gâ—â— and a state of Justification pag. 103. Sect. XX. What Repentance for particular sins is necessary to parâ—â— pag. 106. Sect. XXI Some solution of all the former difficulties in twenty Propâ—â—ons 108. Sect. XXII Few certain of Salvation The reconciling consequents of â—â—â— pag. 112. Sect. XXIII The case of Perseverance further opened and applied pag. 113. Sect. XXIV The sum and scope of this Discourse of Certainty pag. 116. Sect. XXV Degrees of falling and danger pag. 118. Sect. XXVI Of final Justification at Judgment More of the Agreemâ—â—â— Paul and James about Justification by Works pag. 119. Sect. XXVII Of the number of the glorified and the damned pag. 123. A PREMONITION MY work at present is but to lay down so much of the Christian Doctrine briefly as is necessary to be understood for the reconciling of the Controversies about Predestination Providence Grace and Free-will And therefore pass over â—any other weighty Points and must not stand largely to prove all â—s I go which carrieth its own evidence The true nature of the first â—aw or Covenant deserveth a more accurate discussion than I can here â—ake and much passeth as certain with some which hath but little â—roof And here I meet with these different Opinions 1. Some say that the â—ondition of the first Covenant was not Innocency but sincerity And â—at Innocency was only a Duty necessary necessitate praecepti but not â—edii or that it was ut medium necessary ad melius esse or to some cerâ—â—in degrees of felicity whereof it was a condition but not to felicity it â—â—lf And that the Covenant of Grace doth herein agree with it both â—f them damning man only for mortal sin and punishing them tempoâ—â—lly only for venial sin And he seemeth to be of this mind who saith â—â—at Do this and live or Innocency or Works was the Condition only â—f Moses Law but that Adhere and Vanquish was the Condition of the â—rst Covenant But these are ambiguous unsatisfactory terms If the â—eaning be Adhere to God and his Law by perfect Innocency and vanâ—uish all temptations to Sin this is the same with that Innocency which â—e say was the Condition But if he mean only Adhere to me sinâ—erely by love as thy Ultimate End and vanquish all temptations which â—ould draw thee from me to another Ultimate End or God this is â—he same with the first opinion which many Papists seem to hold 2. But the more common Opinion is that which I assert That Innoâ—ency was the Condition not only of Life eternal but of all the beâ—efits of Gods Covenant and the least sin the forfeiture of all They that are for the first Opinion think that if Adam had committed â—ut a small or venial sin as a sinful thought or desire after the forbidden â—ruit without the act or full consent it had been against Gods natural Goodness and Justice to have condemned him to Hell for it And conâ—quently that Christ died not to pardon the pains of Hell as due for such â—â—ttle sins but only temporal smaller punishments But God best knoweth his own Nature And nature telleth us That â—ll sin deserveth punishment And he that sinneth so far removeth his â—eart from God and forfeiteth his Spirit or Grace And he that hath â—nce so turned from God in the least degree cannot of himself return â—or heal himself and had no promise of Gods Grace to do it And â—herefore it is not to be supposed that he should sin no more but such a â—inute sin for greater will come in presently at that breach unless God â—ecover him which he was not in Justice bound to do And no one knowâ—th so well as God how much malignity is in the smallest sin And it was as â—asie for sinless Adam to have continued sinless as for carnal men now â—o forbear gross sin And he that sinneth deserveth not Heaven or Life â—nd there are divers degrees of punishment in Hell according to the degrees of Sin And Christ died for all our sins therefore they dâ— every one deserve death which consisted not with a right to Life therefore not with a right to Heaven And an immortal Soul was not naturally to be annihilated therefore to live in some punishment as separated And Rom. 3. 9. all were under Sin yet all had not gross Sâ—â—
still have heard Obey and live or Sin and die And if Adam â—ad obeyed till his translation to Glory or confirmation in the Reward I find not in Scripture any Promise that this should have been imâ—uted to his Posterity as the full performance of the Condition of their Life or confirmed Happiness but that still their own sinning would have been a possible thing and death would have been the wages of their Sin You seem not to set Adam's Merits and imputed Righteousness any â—igher than Christ's And I am too sure that the justified Members of Christ do sin and must ask daily pardon And whether or not they be confirmed against total Apostasie I am sure few if any of them are confirmed against the possibility or existence or futurity of Sin And if you say that Adam's Posterity though confirmed should have sinned too but should have been pardoned as we are It would be another presumptuous addition and contradiction of Scripture to assert Pardon without a Saviour and a pardoning Covenant 3. Adam's Obedience would have justified his next issue from this false Accusation You are born of a sinful Parent or not of a righteous Parent But it would have justified no man against this Accusation You are personally a Sinner or have not personally loved God and obeyed him Therefore it would have justified any man against this Charge You are to be condemned for Adam's sin But it would have justified no man against these Charges You are to be condemned for your own personal Sin or you have no right to Glory by Gods Promise to the adult which maketh their personal Obedience the Condition 4. And though I cannot again here have time to deal with Confounders who think that Imputation or Justification are words which have but one sense I must say that even so Christ's Righteousness is not so imputed to any man as to be to him in stead of his personal Obedience to the Law or Covenant of Grace which he is under But it will justifie any Believer from these Accusations You must be cast into Hell for breaking the Law of Innocency or you must be shut out of Heaven because you deserved it not by perfect Obedience or you have no perfect or sufficient Saviour or you are such as God cannot pardon without wrong to his Truth Wisdom or Justice It will justifie no man from any of these Charges You are Sinners you deserve condemnation by the first Law you are Impenitent or Unbelievers or Hypâ—crites or have not performed the conditions of life in the Law of Grace The two first we must confess and not justifie our selves by a denial And against the last we must be justified by our own Repentance Faith and sincere Obedience He that will say to the Accuser that chargeth him with final Infidelity Impenitency or Unholiness I am justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will but add to his sin 5. There are all these differences between our Justification according to the first Law had we been capable of it and that which we now have 1. One would have been by God as Creator and Legislator to the Innocent The other by Christ as Redeemer and Legislator to the sinful World 2. One would have been for personal perfect persevering Obedience The other for Christ's Merits as purchasing a free Pardon Grace to penitent Believers and upon our own Faith and Repentance as the Conditions of the new Covenant 3. One would have been without pardon and the other chiefly or much by pardon In one if our Publick Root had perfectly obeyed we must also have perfectly obeyed or die In the other because our Publick Root did perfectly obey Faith and sinceere Obedience to the end is all that is required of us to ouâ— Glory 4. In one the personal matter of worthiness or merit must have been all that perfection which God in justice could require of man In the other it is only The acceptance of a free Gift according to its nature and use and after the thankful use and improvement of it with other such differences § 34. M. S. What Christ did as surety is imputed to us but not his Suretiship or being a publick Person Ans This is true if you understand Imputation in Scripture sense or soundly and not in their sense who presumptuously say That God reputeth us to have done all by Christ which he did for us in his Obedience to the Law § 35. M. S. Christ did not all that he did as Surety but only that which answered the Law An. I suppose you mean that which the Law requireth of us But the word Surety is ambiguous and after here explained and whether you understood it sano sensu I know not He did all that he did as the Mediator and Sponsor for mans Redemption And we are pardoned and justified by the merit of all his own Covenant-keeping with the Father even of such acts as the Law required not of us And some which the Law required of many he did not because it required them not of him § 36. M. S. The Law said not That Christ must be a holy Husband or Father c. The Imputation of one Act of Christ's Obedience is sufficient to our Justification and Merit of life though it need not be curiously set in this or that part of his life § Still more presumption 1. Where saith the Scripture so 2. You must not assert absurdities or presumptions and then think to put off the detection of them by calling it curious If this be true doubtless it was Christs first act of Obedience which merited Glory for us And so it is that first only that must be imputed to us to that end And who ever thought so before you The Fryars have some of them said That minima guttula sanguinis Christi One drop of his blood was enough to redeem all the World And our Divines say Why then was the rest shed So I ask you 1. Why did Christ do all the rest of his Obedience after the first Act Hath none of it the same end and use 2. How shall we be sure that a Sinner must not plead or trust to any of Christ's Righteousness but the first act for his Justification and Reward or must he trust for it to that which was never by Christ intended for it 3. This is contrary to the Scripture which layeth our Justification on his whole Righteousness as meritorious and on his Obedience to the Death and on his rising again and on other parts first Rom. 4. 24. 5. throughout c. 4. Sure they that are so curious as to tell us which physical act of Faith justifieth in specie numero for some say only the first instantaneous act doth justifie will not think it curiosity to enquire which one Act of Christs Obedience justifieth us when according to your Doctrine it is evident that it must be the first And they that say It is Justification by Works to
sinned by Omission 3. But that Law giving life eternal only to Obedience to the end of his time of trial he merited not that life by initial Obedience This was initial imperfect Righteousness wanting perseverance but not a medium between Just and Unjust except as Just signifieth the merit of Life by persevering Righteousness to the last And so I never denied but in a disobliged Subject there is a medium Adam was not bound to do a years work the first hour and so was neither just nor privatively unjust as to the future years work but as to what he was presently obliged to he was either Righteous or a Sinner Here you come short of necessary accurateness Perseverance is a part of our Condition of Glorification Yet he that is not dead is just if he be a Believer and obedient And if God now call him by death he shall be glorified But he hath not now done all that is to be done till his death if he live longer So that his Right to the present possession of Glory before death is not justifiable but his Right in case he now die is § 41. M. S. Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere cannot be put in exchange for fac hoc and therefore justified only as it relateth to him who hath suffered and done for all that will receive him An. 1. Exchange is an ambiguous word Here is no proper exchange Faith is not a fulfilling of the Law of Innocency nor so reputed by God Christ did both satisfie for our not-fulfilling it and also by that and by fulfilling it himself not in our persons but his own did merit the free Gift of Life to us to be ours upon new Covenant terms and Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of that New Covenant and so are that Duty which is laid on our selves to do instead of perfect Obedience supposing Christ's Satisfaction and Merits which are instead of it quoad precium or principally as our said acts are instead of it as to what is necessary in our selves And the Apostle who so oft saith Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness doth neither by Faith mean Christ nor mean that Faith is imputed as a fulfilling the Law of Works But that having no such merit of our own or Righteousness our believing in him that hath satisfied and merited for us is reckoned to us instead of a Righteousness or Merit as being all that now is necessary to our Justification in our selves our persevering Obedience being afterward necessary to our Glory 2. No doubt Faith relateth to Christ and here connoteth him as its Object It were not Christian Faith else But it is also related to the New Covenant as its Condition and in that form hath its place to our Justification which cannot be denied Therefore you untruly say Only as relating to Christ and your words confute your self You say Who hath suffered and done for all that will receive him You speak either of secret Decree and that giveth no Right or of Covenant Donation And to say He and his benefits are given in Covenant to all that will receive him is all one as to say The Covenant giveth them on condition that we receive him which is true § 42. M. S. 5. It is impossible that the terms of the Covenant of Grace can be any other than they are because nothing but receiving him can make him mine An. 1. That proveth not that Faith is not the Condition but that it needs must be so 2. It is impossible now the Covenant is so made viz. ex necessitate existentiae But that God could have made it no otherwise is not a thing for man to say 3. Confound not passive Reception with active moral Reception Justificari is passively to receive Justification and to be first related to Christ as mine or to be one that he is given to is passively to receive Christ Active moral receiving is the Wills consenting thus to have him on all his terms and is the means of the other It is this and not the other that is Faith And could not God possibly have made Christ ours by any alteration of the terms sure they that confine Faith to the receiving of Christs imputable Righteousness will grant that God could possibly have put one act more of Faith into the Condition or onâ— act of Gratitude Desire Love or Repentance And Dr. Twisse thinks he could have given a man a Right to Life without Christ's Satisfaction and to Christ without Faith and that so he doth to Infants § 43. M. S. There is no Righteousness in point of Justification but only in conformity to the Rule Do this that only brings a man under the approving Will of God An. 1. But what is the Do this that you mean Adam's Law said Do this and live Moses Law said Do this and live The Law given to Christ said Do and suffer this and I will give thee Power over all Flesh to give eternal life to as many as I give thee and believe The Law of Christ to Sinners saith Do this and live This is the work of God that ye believe c. But all these Doings are different for all that It 's an unknown Faith or Repentance which is no Act or Duty 2. There is no Righteousness but the conformity to the Rule of Righteousness if you speak only of that Righteousness which is of that species But there is another sort He that is justifiable is just so far If Satan say Thou art condeâ—nandus to be damned to Hell and shut out of Heaven for breaking the Law of Works I must deny it not by saying I did not break it but keep it by another or I did not deserve damnation but by alledging He that is pardoned is not to suffer any pain of sense or loss I am pardoned by the New covenant through the Merit of the Satisfaction and perfect Righteousness of Christ Adam's Law will not justifie you nor Moses's Law neither The Law requireth personal perfect Obedience It never said Thou or another for thee shalt obey It knoweth no Surety To give a Surety and to accept his suretiship is the act of the Law Giver as above his Law not fulfilling that Law but securing the ends of Government and of it by another way To pardon a Sin and Penalty is not to fulfil the Law that threatened it but to dispense with it which Justice can do upon a valuable consideration securing the ends of Government And Veracity is not impeached by it For 1. The sense of silius mortis is Death shall be thy due and so it was 2. And death was actually inflicted on man himself though not all that which he deserved If the Law of Innocency justifie you you need no Redeemer you need no Pardon you need no New Covenant to justifie you nor can it do it 3. We are justified by Doing though not by our fulfilling the Law of Works by our selves or another We are justified
by two sort◠of Doing Principally by the Merit of Christ's perfect Righteousness and subordinately by our fulfilling the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace which Baptism celebrateth 4. Gods Will approveth of all that is good so far as it is good It approveth of habitual Holiness in Adam and would have done in his Infants had he stood and doth so in all Christians now And I will believe that Christ before he actually obeyed was under Gods approving Will. But not as one that had merited by Obedience For God doth not suppose any to do that which they do not nor oblige them to do to-morrows work to-day § 44. M. S. The issue in a word is 1. Suffering for Sin is not doing nor equivalent in point of Justification 2. Nor can God having satisfaction for what was done cross to his Law lay aside that in order to the conveying of Life and substitute believing instead of it Therefore Faith justifieth ratione objecti only Now we Do in another Christ instead of doing in our own persons An. I doubt this is another Gospel than the Apostles delivered us though I hope that practically we meet in one 1. To the first I answer It 's true but you do ill to intimate that we think otherwise Suffering by the Sinner never satisfieth because it must be everlasting Suffering by Christ satisfieth not meerly as suffering but as the voluntary suffering of God-Man aptly glorifying Justice and Love and securing the ends of Government This Satisfaction is not equivalent to doing in Justification For Doing all required would have justified us against this Charge Thou art a Sinner by Omission and Commission and thou hast deserved Death and hast not deserved Life according to the Law of Works Against this Charge I look for no Justification but confess it is all true But Christ's Satisfaction justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee by paine of loss and sense or else he is not just because thou hast deserved it And Christ's perfect Righteousness also justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee and deny thee life because thou didst not merit it by perfect Obedience The Justifier says No because Christ's Merit in Doing and Suffering hath glorified the Law and Justice of God instead of my Merit and hath procured us Pardon and Life given by the New Covenant 2. To the second I answer 1. God did not lay aside his first Covenant but man by sin did lay it aside by making the Condition impossible 2. You overturn the Gospel too much by thinking that the Law is not laid aside as a Covenant or Promise though I grant that the Precept as a Rule of Life continues To say that the sense of Adam's Law was Thou or another Christ for thee shalt obey And that we are justified by that Law is to confound Law and Gospel and make a Gospel of that Law and make the Covenant of Works not to condemn us or both to condemn and justifie and to feign man to live and be judged by the Covenant that is ceased God saith now to no man living Be innocent and so merit life that thou maist live And God doth not repute us innocent at all 3. To the third I answer It is notoriously untrue that Faith justifieth only ratione objecti unless you mean that efficiently it justifieth not at all which is true For we are justified by it also ratione foederis because that which is materially Faith in Christ a justifying Saviour and so connoteth its Object as the meritorious Cause of the free Gift and Pardon is by reason of this aptitude made the Condition of that New Covenant or Gift which is its nearest interest or reason of our being justified by it And it is the Law of Grace by which we must be judged and justified And at that Bar the question which Life or Death dependeth on will be supposing Christ's Merits whether we are penitent Believers or impenitent Unbelievers and so have part in Christ or not And if Satan accuse us as being impenitent Unbelievers and the question be whether we have true Faith or not my Opinion is that we cannot be herein justified by pleading the Object when the Act is questioned and saying That Christ fulfilled that Law unless you could prove that he justifieth impenitent Infidels and as Saltmarsh said repented and believed for us But the grand Case remaineth Whether we are justified by the Law of Innocency by fulfilling it and meriting in another without any sort of doing of our own by our selves Mr. Wotton Mr. Gataker and abundance more have long ago said much to confute your Error besides Mr. Bradshaw whom you name But I add I. I have before proved that by the deeds or sentence of the Law of Adam or Moses no man can be justified 1. He that hath sinned against it cannot be justified as not having sinned For factum infectum fieri is impossible to God himself 2. The Law that condemneth us doth not justifie us 3. What Paul Rom. 3. 4. frequently saith against Justification by the Law of Moses will hold here a fortiori And Christ keeping Moses Law as far as he was capable of Obligation that also would else have been imputed and so we should have been justified by that Law also which the Scripture copiously denieth He that saith He hath no sin deceiveth himself and is a lyar and the truth is not in him And the Law of Adam justifieth no man that hath sin II. We did not fulfil it and merit in Christ But Christ did in the Person of a Mediator voluntarily undertaking it on his Fathers terms and not as our Instrument or in our Persons I have else-where given abundance of Arguments against that which I must not here repeat This Author took notice of my Objection that he that is reputed perfectly Innocent and Obedient is uncapable of Pardon and needeth no satisfaction or remitting or rewarding Covenant besides that which he kept but answereth it not This subverteth the Gospel and Religion Quer. If there be no Reward nor Life but of Justice and no Reward but for Christ's Merits and all Believers equally merited in Christ as fulfilling all the Law 1. Whence cometh the inequality of Grace and Glory 2. How come any Believers to be left long under sins and weakness of Grace and temporal punishments III. The Merits of Christ have procured us the New Covenant sealed in Baptism by which we have a new Rule offiicii judicii for such is every Law Christ is not the only Subject of God He made us not lawless or Rebels God still ruleth the Church by a Law or Covenant This is the Law or Covenant of Grace Deny this Covenant and you deny the Gospel This Covenant or Law obligeth us to Duty And it promiseth and giveth Pardon and Life in and with Christ This Covenant hath Conditions various conditions of various Benefits Our first true consent which Baptism celebrateth that is
si in Ecclesia Christi ut talis est aliquae leges judiciales siâ—t necessariae ad politicum regimen Ecclesiasticum quod suo modo spirituale est nihilominus noluit Christus dominus per se ipsum illas leges ferre sed id Vicariis suis commisit potestatem ad illas ferendas eis tribuendo Et ideo illae Leges non sub Lege Divina sed sub canonica computantur Prâ—prie igitur loquendo de Lege divina nova in illa non inveniuntur praecepta judicialia So that Christ never made the Papacy nor any of its Laws But indeed he appointed Baptism as our Church-entrance and more than a Ceremony and the state of Câ—uâ—ch Officers and their work and discipline Mat. 18. And what his Spirit did in the Apostles he did in another sort than he doth by any ordinary Ministers that have but the Spirits ordinary help b b b Aquinas and many other Papists â—oyn with some late Secâ—aâ—ies and say that it 's the Spirits Operation on the Heart that is the Lex nova and that it is not written But he could not deny but that yet the Gospel is Lex nova Scripta But falsly de nomine taketh this but for the secondary sense of the lâ—x which is the first and that the obliging Law and the other the effects of it as various as persons are that have it and not the Rule of Obligation And else-where I have shewed also de Lege natura As to the question Whether Christ's Law be exterior insignis vocal and written or in the Heart by the Spirit Suarez truly saith That lex imperans is in signis in Scripture words but lex impellens is the Spirit which though here the chief yet is not properly but metaphorically called a Law pag. 819. li. 1. in principio Though he add that it was eight years before the Gospel was written by Matthew and longer by the rest and that all that time and since it is written in the Heart But memory may retain a vocal Law before the Heart by love and subjection do receive it 61. In this Law or Covenant is made a free universal Deed of Gift of Christ first and of Pardon Spirit and Glory in and by him to all Mankind without exception who will believingly accept it in its true nature as it is offered therein Or If they will so accept it as Believers 62. This Covenant is to be preached by Christ's Ministers and men invited to believe and consent And all that so do are to profess that consent by a solemn Covenant in their Baptism and so to give up themselves devotedly to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost renouncing the Devil Flesh and World 63. For Faith in God the Father is as essential a part of that Faith which we must profess in Baptism and is called commonly justifying as Faith in Christ is And so is Faith in the Holy Ghost in its place For it is not possible to believe in Christ without believing first in God to whom he is the way and with whom he is our Mediator nor to believe in him fully as Christ unless we believe in him as giving us the sanctifying Spirit 64. This Covenant is nevertheless free as to the donation of the Gifts for being conditional For the Condition is not the purchase procurement by efficient causality or any way a proper cause of the Gift as given but only a dispositive cause of our reception of it and of the Gift as received It is a removens prohibens The Condition as imposed and as the mode of the Promise is only a suspension of the Donation and Right till it be performed The Condition as performed is a removing the suspension And so it is a receiving cause which is but dispositio materiae receptivae of which more in due place 65. And the Gift is nevertheless free because the Condition is but such as is morally-antecedently necessary to the reception of free Gifts For though physical Donation oft make its own way and pre-require not such Conditions as these at least yet moral Donation by Deed of Gift supposeth that the person will receive it and despising or unthankful refusal or turning it against the Donor nullifieth such a Donation in the Civil Laws of men 66. And the Benefits are nevertheless conditionally given though the Spirit of Christ cause us to perform the Condition For they are called conditional from the mode or form of the Covenant which giveth men Right to Christ and Life expresly on condition of believing 67. Though this believing be sometimes described as the assent of the Intellect and sometimes as the consent of the Will and sometime as a practical affiance trusting Christ as a Saviour to save us with Soul and Body to the renouncing and letting go all other trust Yet when ever Justification and Life is promised to Faith all these three are the essential parts of it 68. The clearest discovery of the true nature of Gods Covenant with man and of that Faith by which we partake of the benefits of it is in Baptism it self which hath ever been the entrance of men into Gods Covenant as consented to and mutual and so into a visible state of Christianity and membership of Christ and the Catholick Church And therefore it is happy for us that Christ so expresly delivered the form of the Baptismal Covenant and the Universal Church hath so safely in her practice kept it 69. This Baptismal Covenant which is conditional and the consent to which doth make us Christians must be still distinguished from the Covenant between the Father and Christ or his Law of Redemption And God promiseth not to us all that he promiseth to Christ for us nor giveth all to us which he giveth to him 70. And it must be distinguished from Gods meer Predictions concerning his Elect that he will call them renew them and save them or if those Predictions run in the form of a Promise either as they are promises to Christ concerning the Elect or as promises to the Church in general how God will perfect it still they give no man a Law-Title or Right to any of the Benefits till he is a Believer They justifie and pardon no man And so they must not be confounded with the Baptismal Covenant which is Gods stated Instrument of Justification and of Government and the Law by which he will Judge us at the last 71. This Baptismal Covenant is the character and test by which we must judge who are Christians and members of the Catholick Church of Christ and not by their Subjection to a pretended vicarious universal Monarch And this is the character with consent to his relation there by which every mans fitness for membership in a particular Church must be judged of And not by other Covenants besides that consent and proofs of Conversion not here included And this containeth the true Characters by which every man may know himself
justified by Faith it connoteth and includeth that we are justified by Christ and his Sacrifice Merits and Covenant respectively believed in But yet it is not Christ nor his Sacrifice or Merits or Promise that is meant by the word Faith It was a gross abuse of the Text so to expound it Faith connoteth the Object but it is not Christ that is called Faith 140. But the meaning is that man having forfeited Life Christ's Righteousness habitual active and passive hath merited that it shall be given us as a free Gift but yet regularly under a Law But the Law maketh nothing but believing acceptance the condition of our Right and he that doth that much shall without perfection be esteemed and used as righteous for the sake of the said Righteousness of Christ So that in point of Merit as to the value of the thing Christ's Righteousnesâ— is instead of our Innocency But as to the order of collation something being still to be required of us as a condition of Right so our Faith now is instead of our Innocency as being all that is laid on us instead of â—â— that we may have right to Justification And to assign this condition oâ— our part Paul saith That Faith is imputed to us for righteousness To deny this sense is to use violence with the Text. 141. Christ's Righteousness is made ours as our Sins were made his which is not in themselves as is aforesaid God forbid we should think that Christ was ever reputed by God to be a Sinner a Blasphemer a Murderer an Enemy to God and Goodness one that had Satan's Image and was his Servant a Persecutor of himself c. But only our sin was imputed to him as to the punishment deserved that is he assumed the Reatum poenae the punishment and a dueness occasioned by our sin but made his own by his voluntary sponsion But never had he the reaâ—um culpae in its self but meerly as aforesaid respectively to the punishment Even so we have the Righteousness of Christ not in its self as Proprietors of it but in relation to the effects that is we have the effects even our Justification and other benefits as purchased by it and for its sake And as our guilt or obligation to punishment was not Christ's till his voluntary sponsion or consent did make it so Even so his Righteousness is not ours in the effects till our voluntary consent accept it Because iâ— is not a natural but a contracted Relation that is between Christ and us And as it is not a strict propriety in Christ's Righteousness that we have so it is much less a plenary and absolute propriety nor have we it in the Relation of a meritorious cause to all uses as if it had been fully our own but only limitedly to those uses which God accepted it for and hath assigned to it in the Gospel that is it is but a certain sort and measure of mercies that are given us from it in Gods time and way 142. To the asserting of the rigid sense of Imputation they are necessitated to say that which supposeth Gods repute of the matter to be false that is that he reputeth us to have done that in and by Christ which we never did by him But God judgeth nothing to be otherwise than it is that he judgeth Christ to have been the Sponsor and Mediator and in that person to have done and suffered as he did is because it is true But he judgeth him not to have been the legal Person of the Sinner and as many persons as there be redeemed Sinners in the world because that is not true 143. They say that what the Surety doth the Debtor doth in Law-sense and to judge so is not to err But there are several sorts of Sureties much more of Instruments in paying a Debt 1. There be free Sureties who are not obliged to the Debtor as his Dependents and these either by counter-security or by right of the thing may recover all of the Debtor again And therefore the Law supposeth not the Debtor to have payed the Debt by them but that the Creditor made them both Joynt-Debtors for his own security 2. There are Sureties antecedently and Sureties consequently One that before the Debt doth conditionally make himself a Joynt-Debtor in case the Principal pay it not And there is a Surety more properly called an undertaking-Friend who after payeth the Debt being disobliged before Christ was not a Surety of the first sort in Law-sense And if you call Gods Decrees which are his Essence Suretiship your liberty of words changeth not the case 3. There is a Surety who payeth the Debt in the name and person of the principal Debtor And he is not properly called a Surety but an Agent or Substitute And Christ was none such nor is any proper Surety such And there is a Surety which by the Creditors consent doth pay the Debt in his own name agreeing that the chief Debtor shall have no benefit by it but from him as he shall give it on certain terms And this was Christ's case 4. There is a Surety that payeth the same debt that was due from the Principal And there is a Surety or Friend that undertaketh only to make the Creditor satisfaction because the Debtor cannot pay And this is the case 5. Lastly There is a pay-master that is the Debtors Instrument whether Servant Delegate or whoever at his command or request doth pay it in his name and person And this is not the case And there is a proper Surety who is a third person and no Instrument and payeth it in his own name though for another This as I said is the case and therefore it is not we that paid it Therefore to the Objection I say that to judge Christ such an Instrument or Delegate of ours or Surety that did all in our legal person is to misjudge and err as is proved which God cannot do 144. Christ did and suffered in the common nature of man though not in the person of each Sinner And mans nature is so far redeemed by him that for the meer Original Sin of nature alone no man shall perish unless he add the rejection of Grace of which somewhat is said before But yet as Nature existeth only in persons so it is all persons who have this much benefit and more But that he merited and satisfied in our Nature is a proper speech and truer than that he did it in our persons 145. But all this similitude of a Creditor and Debtor is to be limited in the application according to the great difference of Sin and Debt which will infer a great diversity in the consequents which may easily be collected by the Reader 146. As to the great and weighty question whether Christ died for How far Christ died for sins against the Law of Grace sins against the New Covenant or only for those against the old I answer Distinction is here notoriously
him total resignation and use as such 2. As our Ruler we owe him â—ubjection and Obedience as such 3. As our Friend Benefactor Amaâ—â—lissimus we owe him Gratitude and Love as such which yet is part â—f Obedience too Now Sin being the privation of all this God is to â—e satisfied for it as such in all these three Relations And is pars laesa â—â— all these three Relations that is he is injured though not hurt It is â—â—ue that Government and punishing Justice formally as such belong to God only as Rector And satisfaction is made him eminently in that Reâ—ation yet also to compensate the injury done by sin to him in the other â—wo Relations also SECT IX Of the nature and distinctions of Justification 152. Justification is a word of many significations the Scheme whereof And 1. Of constitutive Justification should I give them all would seem to most Readers a troublesome diâ—tinguishing Therefore I take up with these three most notable senses â— Justification constitutive 2. Sentential 3. Executive The first is to make a man righteous The second is to judge him righteâ—us The third is to use him as righteous 1. By Impunity 2. Reward * * * The Papists are confounded in the point of Justification by sticking to confounding words They talk of Justification and remission of sin but cannot tell men intelligibly what they mean They say that Remission is a putting away the sin it self and not only the Reatum poenae and yet say many that it may be done without any physical change of the Sinner 1. By sin they mean not the Habit for that cannot be removed without a physical change 2. Nor the act For that is past as soon as done 3. When they say it is macula moralis habitualiter remanens they talk gibberish and play with a metaphor and the word habitualiter A true habit is quid physicum and what macula is they can tell no man besides a habit disposition privation â—r relation If they mean that it is the Reatus culpae or culpability that is done away and not only the Reatus poenae they hold â—he same thing which they oppose in those Protestants that go too far from them And it is not sound For the pardoned Sinâ—er will be culpable though not punishable for ever that is will be really the man that sinned and it will be an everâ—asting truth This man sinned though he be pardoned See Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. pag. 509 510 511. The Papists say Homo est formaliter justus per formam gratiae ipst exâ—riâ—secam non tantum per justitiam Christi illi imputatam And yet Nullus actus quantumvis perfectus sive sit contritio sive Amor Dei super omnia est causâ— formalis justificationis Patres diâ—entes charitatem esse perfectam justitiam intelligendi sunt dispositive non autem formaliter Because it is in the Habit and not in the Act â—r rather as others of them say in some internal inclination antecedent to the habits of Faith Hope and Love that they place Justification or as we call it Sanctification Pet. a S. Joseph Thes Univers de grat Hab. pag. 88 89. 153 God never judgeth a man righteous either by secret esteem or open sentence till he have made him such 154. To be made righteous is to be justified in Law-sense which is To be justifiable or justificandus by sentence 155. A man is righteous 1. Particularly secundum quid as to some particular cause that he is accusable of 2. Or universally as to all causes 3. Or eminently as to all those causes that Heaven or Hell depend upon 156. 1. No man is universally righteous really or reputatively God judgeth no Saint in Heaven to be one that never sinned And he that hath once sinned is unavoidably under the Relation of â—â—â—â— that sinned to eternity ex necessitate existentiae which Relation is the very Reatus ipsius peccati though all the ill effects be remitted 157. 2. Every man hath some particular righteousness For the worst man may be falsly accused and be righteous as to that false accusation But this will not save him 158. 3. That eminent Righteousness necessary to our Salvation though it be not universal or perfect else we should never be afficted by chastiâ—â—ments or denials of Grace or permissions to sin yet is it at least perfect as to its proper use and to our glorious perfection And may be called our universal Righteousness because it is all that we have And â—â— consisteth not of any one or two Causes but of many Of which no oâ—â— must be excluded or set against the rest As there are several Allegatioâ—â— or Accusations against us so there must be several parts of the matter of our Justification 159. Not only an actual Accusation but a possible or a virtual oâ—â— which we are liable to sufficeth to denominate Justification as its contrary in the first Law-sense of Justification 160. It is our Right to Impunity and to the heavenly Glory which is to be justified finally in Judgment and our persons as the Subjects of that Right And our Actions but mediately in order to that end 161. It is only at the Bar of Christ as Redeemer that we are to be judged and justified and not by God only as a Creator Therefore it is by the Law of Grace that we must be judged to life or death finally and not by the sole Law of Innocency 162. Therefore no man is justified by the Law of Innocency either by the preceptive or retributive part But we are justified only by the Lâ—â— or Covenant of Grace against the Accusation which may be brought against us from the Law of Innocency Against it not by it 163. We are liable to all these following Accusations which will opeâ— to us the correlate Justifications and the matter of each part 1. It may be said by the Accuser of the Brethren Thou art a Siâ—â—â—â— against the Precepts of Nature and Grace He that denieth this is a Lyar Against this Charge there is no Justification for ever But we must â—â— Heaven confess that we have sinned but Glory be to him that washed â—s from our sins in his blood by Pardon and Sanctifiation 164. 2. Next it may be said that We did deserve Hell by our Sin This also is to be confessed for ever 165. 3. It may be said that by Gods Law of Innocency Hell is ouâ— due and therefore we are to be condemned to it To this we deny the consequence because we have right to Impunity and to Glory freely given us by God our Redeemer by a Covenant of Grace merited for us by the Obedience and Satisfaction given for us by Christ our Saviour Where note that here in this first part of our Justification there are all these conjunct necessary Causes 1. Gods Love and Mercy giving 2. Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction meriting 3. The Covenant
and the Righteousness which is not in us but in him is â—urs so far as to be for our Good as far as his Office and Covenant do obâ—ige him So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ are ours Relatively themselves quoad jus beneficis so as â—hat we have right to these Benefits by them which we shall possess â—nd for the merits of his Righteousness we are conditionally justified and saved before we believe and actually after But are not accounted to be Christ nor the Legal Actors of what he did nor Christ â—ccounted to be each of us SECT V. Merit 192. The great Controversie about humane Merits which hath made â—o great a noise in the world is of so easie solution that I can scarce Confes August Art 6. Semper sentiendum est nos consequt remissionem peccatorum personam pranâ—nciari Iustam id est acceptari gratis propter Christum per fidem postea vero placere etiam obedientiam erga legem reputari quandam Justiciam mereri praemia Et Art de Bon. operib Quanquam hac nova obedientia procul abest a perfectione legis tamen est â—usâ—iâ—ia meretur praemia ideo quia personae reconciliatae sâ—nt It a dâ— operibus judicandum est quae amplissâ—â—iâ— laâ—dibuâ— orâ—anda sunt quod sint necessariá quod sint cultus Dei Sacrificia spiriâ—â—alia mereantur praemia Ib. Exâ—recitatio nostra conservat ea meretur incrementum uxta illud Habenti dabitur Augustinus praeclare dixit Dilectio â—erâ—ur incrementum dilectionis cum viz exercetur Habent enim bonâ— apera Praemia cum in hac vita tum post hanc vitam in vita aternaâ— â—hink but almost all sober understanding Christians in the world are â—greed in sence while they abhor each others opinions as ill expressed or misunderstood Distinguish but 1. Of Commutative Justice and Distributive Governing Justice 2. And of Governing Justice according â—o Gods several Laws of Innocency Mosaical Works and of Grace â— And of Justifying and Meriting simply and comparatively And the case is so plain that few things are more plain to us that Christians conâ—rovert Viz. 1. To dream of meriting from God by any Creature Man or Angel in point of Commutative Justice is blasphemy and madness that is That we can give him any thing that shall profit him or which is not absolutely his own as a compensation for what he giveth us He maketh himself a God that asserteth this of himself 2. To say that any since Adâ—â— save Christ doth merit of God in point of Governing Justice according to the Law of Innocency is a falshood And he that saith He bâ—â—â— no sin is a lyar 3. To say that we can merit pardon or Justification oâ— Salvation meerly by observing Moses Law was the Jews pernicious erroâ— 4. To say that our faith and performance of the conditions of the new Covenant doth merit by the retributive Sentence of the old Covenanâ— or that it is in whole or part any meritorious Cause that God gave the world a Saviour or that Christ freely pardoneth and justifieth us all conditionally by the new Covenant or that it supposeth not Christ's Righâ—â—ousness to be the total sole meritorious Cause of that pardoning Covenant and all the benefits as thereby conditionally given All this is gross contradiction 5. To deny subordinate Comparative Merit or Rewardablâ—ness as from Gods Governing distributive paternal Justice according to the Covenant of Grace consisting in the performance of the condition of that Covenant and presupposing Christs total merits as aforesaid iâ— to subvert all Religion and true Morality and to deny the scope of all the Scriptures and the express assertion of an Evangelical worthiness which is all that this Merit signifyeth To say nothing of contradicting Catholick antiquity and hardening the Papists against the truth 193. This Comparative Merit is but such as a thankful Child hath towards his Father who giveth him a purse of Gold on condition thâ—â— he put off his hat and say I thank you who deserveth it in Comparison of his Brother who disdainfully or neglectfully refuseth it This last being absolutely said to Deserve to be without it but the former only comparatively said to deserve to have it as a free gift 194. And those that reject the saying of some Papists who in thiâ— sence say that Christ merited that we might merit placing our Evangelical merit in a meer subordination to Christs do but shew what prejudice and partiality can do and harden those who perceive their errors 195. Some man may think that the high things required in the Gospel self-denyal forsaking all running striving working loving overcoming Whether faith be not the meer Acceptance of a free gift according to its Nature Against Merit read of Papists Waldens de Sacram. tit 1. Gregor Armin. 1. d. 17. q. 1. a. 2. Durand 1. d. 27. q. 2. Marsil 2. d. 27. Brugers in Psal 35. Eckins in Centur. de Praedest Et inquit Fr. a Sancta Clara Deus Nat. Grat. p. 138. tribuitur etiam Cusano nec longe differt Stapletonus nostras Leg. Suarez in 3. p. Tho. Disp 10. Sect. 7. q. 3. See the Thomists sence of Merit in Lud. Carbo Tho. Compend 1. 2. q. 23. art 4. p. 240. c. are more than the meer Receiving of a free Gift But 1. If it were so yet our first faith would be no more by which we are Justified from all the sins of our unregeneracy 2. But upon consideration it will all appear to be no more materially For 1. When we say that it is the Receiving of the free Gift we must mean According to the Nature and to the use of that Gift As if you be required to take food the meaning is to Eat it and not to throw it away If you be required to take such a man to be your King your Master your Tutor your Husband your Physician c. the meaning is As such to the use of his proper office And so Accept of God as God that is our Absolute Owner Ruler and End and Christ as our Saviour Prophet Priest and King and the Holy Ghost as our Sanctifyer to Illuminate quicken and renew us is the suâ— of all the Positives of the Gospel 2. For this very Acceptance of them in this Nature and to this Use includeth the using of them after accordingly And if we do not so use them we thereby reject them and lose our own benefit of them as he that eateth not his meat refuseth and loseth it and he that weareth not his Cloaths and he that learneth not of his Teacher 3. And then Self-denyal and forsaking contraries and resisting impediments is but the same motus ut a termino a quo And he that refuseth to come out of his Prison and Chains refuseth his Liberty and he refuseth the Gold that will not cast away his handful of dirt to take it So that
As the Angels rejoyce at a Sinners Conversion and therefoâ—â— know it so the notifying of Gods acceptance and pardon to the Angelâ— may be called some sort of sentential Justification 215. And the notifying our constitutive Righteousness to our Consciences is some kind of sentential Justification 216. But this Justification called in foro conscientiae is not the Justification by Faith so much spoken of in Scripture For that ever goeâ—â— before this A man is ever made just before he can be esteemed judged or known to be so And this in conscience is an uncertain mâ—â—â—ble thing according to the weakness of the man And oft he that â—â— just before God doth most doubt of it and condemn himself This justification may cease when we sleep or think of other things and may rise and fall daily if not be often lost And it is not of that grand importance to our Salvation as justification by Faith is 1 Cor. 4. 4. SECT XV. Of initial executive Pardon or Justification 217. But the most notable justification by way of sentence is 1. By Gods initial Executions here 2. By the publick Sentence and Executiâ—â— at the Day of Judgment 218. God speaking not by Voice that is called his Sentence which dâ—cisively declareth his Judgment But the Execution most notably declareth that Therefore though they be two things with men and sometimes with God yet Sentence being oft passed principally by Execution they are then both one 219. In this sense to sanctifie a man is to justifie him executively and so sententially For executive Justification and Pardon is the actual Impâ—â—ity removing of deserved Punishment and actual giving possession of Life and Salvation which constitutive Justification gave us Right to And as our privation of the Spirit and Holiness and to be left in sin is a great punishment so to have the Spirit and Holiness given us is executive See my Epist before Mr. Hotchâ—â— Book Of Forgiveness and his Book Pardon and Justification And so will Glorification much more 220. Executive Pardon and Justification therefore though the last of three sorts is the noblest as supposing both the other and being their end and the perfecting of the whole work 221. Non-punire is not always Pardon because it may respect an innoâ—ent and uncapable Object But the Rulers non-punire sontem is pardon â— what degree soever But a non-punire as the execution of an Act of â—blivion or Gift of Right to Impunity is the fullest executive â—â—rdon 222. The same must be said of nolle punire which is no pardon as â—â— the Innocent nor to a fore-seen Guilt not yet existent no more than â—â— a stone But when the person becometh guilty and obliged to suffer â—â—en Gods nolle punire becometh de novo a pardon denominatione extrinâ—ca without any change in God 223. For God perfectly to forgive sin while any sin remaineth in the More of that imperfection of Pardon against Ockam and others â—oul epecially habitual is a contradiction For sin it self though not â—â— sin nor as effected yet as permitted and not healed is the greatest â—unishment as was said And there is no perfect pardon of the punishâ—ent while such punishment is continued And Ockam's great subâ—lty failed when Quodlib 4. q. 1. he determined that per potentiam abâ—â—lutam Deus potest salvare hominem sine charitate creata unless he meant that he can charitatem dare aliter quam creando For to save a man withâ—ut Grace or Love is a contradiction His first Argument is God can do that immediately which he can do by â—â—y second Cause efficient or final * * * Can they tell us intelligibly how the sin of Unbelief and not-loving God and other privations can be really put away without the contrary quality or act Scotus with Rada other Scotists go the same way upon the same false suppositions And to confute one of them is to confute all And so the Papists that say Original Sin is forgiven in Baptism as to the whole calpability and penalty as Petavins in Elench Theriac Vincent-Lenis i. e. Fromondi p. 111. c. 2â— do grosly err For 1. It cannot be that the pravity of mans will should not be culpable 2. And the remaining of that pravity is it self a great punishment of the sin which procured it The truth is which should satisfie them that to the truly baptized or â—â—eartconsenters to Gods Covenant Original Sin and all sin is pardoned at to the great eternal pernicious punishment But not absolutely and perfectly pardoned yet as to all degrees of punishment Nor is all the â—â—â—pability ceased But Love or Grace given is an efficiâ—t or final second Cause Therefore God can save a man without it Ans The minor is your mistake Love here is Salvation it self begun â—â— this life and perfected in the next And to give it and not to give it â—re contradictions All the rest of his arguments go upon the same â—istake as if Love were but a meritorious cause of Salvation and not â—e thing it self And as erroneously Q. 4. he determineth that per potentiam absoluâ—m God can remittere peccanti culpam poenam sine infusione gratiae â—eatae unless he had put the question only de modo conferendi gratiam â—n alio modo sine infusione Deus illam potest efficere But who knoweth â—hat infusion is distinct from other Divine efficience Or unless he had â—poken only of Gods giving the jus ad rem non rem ipsam viz. Ipsam â—mpunitatem For undoubtedly the poena damni properly poena is â—he privation of the Souls rectitude health and happiness which all â—onsist in the love of God And to pardon a mans forfeiture of Happiness executively without giving him the happiness which he forfeited â—r to give man happiness without giving him love to God are both gross contradictions unless equivocally you meant making a man some other thing and giving him the happiness of that other thing His first argument here is Whomsoever God can by his absolute power â—ccept as worthy of life eternal without infused Grace to him he can forgive â—all sin without infused Grace But c. For proof he referreth us to that which I now confuted adding That God could accept a man in his pure naturals to life eternal I answer It is a fiction that ever man had such naturals made by God as were not indued with the principle and disposition of holy love the same thing which infused Grace first restoreth much more that Adam lived without the acting of this love But if it were so yet to accept man to life eternal is to accept him to the love of God so that if he did prove that a graceless man might be predestinated to Glory he did but prove that he is predestinated to perfect holiness and the love of God And though without this he may be predestinated or might have had a promise and right by promise yet without
it he could never have the thing promised for that were to have God and not to have him nor yet his necessary disposition for fruition for without holiness he is not a capable disposed recipient of Salvation The rest of his arguments run all upon this error as iâ— love and holiness were only the means and not the end and Salvation given SECT XVI Of assurance of Pardon Justification and Salvation And whether it be Faith 224. The Faith by which we are justified is not a believing that â—â—â—â— justified but a believing that we may be justified Not a believing tâ—â— Christ is ours more than other mens or that we shall be saved but â— believing in Christ that he may be ours and we may be saved by him 225. There is assurance in this Faith not assurance that we are sâ—cere or shall be saved But assurance that Gods Promises and all â—â— Words are true and that he will perform them and that Christ â—â— the Saviour of the world and that the love of God is our End â—â—â—â— Happiness and that all this is offered to us in Christ even Pardon â—â—â— Life as well as others which offer Faith accepteth truly But the Believer is oft uncertain of the sincerity of his own belief and so of â—â— Salvation 226. How much certainty we have of Divine Revelation and Scripture verity I have so fully opened in many Tractates and lastly in oâ—â— I know that the learned Conciliator Guiliel Forbes doth confidently charge them as guilty of confusion who place Faith in more faculties than one and that call it Fiducia But I doubt not but the error is his own which tendeth to confusion by not distinguishing a meer physical act from a moral or political which is made up of many physical acts And if he or Bishop Gror. Downame Camero or any that go that way had been put to tell what one physical act they will confine Christian justifying Faith to they would have â—ound themselves in confusion To say It is assent denieth not but that it must be an assent to many verities And this assent signifieth at once a belief that God is true and that this is his word and that this word is true He that saith It is a belief of the assertion for the oredibility of the Asâ—ertor can scarce prove that he nameth but one Act And I know no such assent which â—â—â—â— bit essentially contain a trusting to the word of the Assertor or Testifier called Fiducâ—a Can you believe a â—aâ—â— â—oâ—â—â—â— be true because he is credible and not trust his credibility so far as believing him importeth It is a contradiction Fâ—â—â— eredentis is nothing but a trusting to the Fides dicentis and they are Relatives as Act and Object Though I grant that â—â—â—â— is also a quietting applicatory Trust or Fiducia which is but the exercise of Faith as supposing me to see my 〈…〉 Promise which cometh after our first believing in which we see but our receptive capacity that the Promise 〈…〉 with the rest of Mankind and the thing promised is offered to me called The certainty of Christianity without Popery that I will not here repeat it further than to say that it is not a perfect apprehension which we call our certainty nor yet an uneffectual doubtful one But such â—â—â— as will carry a man on confidence of Gods Word to a holy life and â—â— the forsaking of all other hopes even life it self for the hopes which â—â— given us by Christ which yet may have several degrees in several persons But objective certainty which is the evidence of verity is mâ—â—â— full than our subjective certainty for want of our due receptivity â—â— us and is still the same in it self though not equally brought or reveaâ—â— to all 227. Even doubting of the truth of the Scripture and Christianity may stand with saving Faith and Salvation when it is not predominant nor so great as to keep us from the said forsaking all for Christ and Heaven 228. Doubting of mans own Salvation is not always from weakness of Faith directly much less is it the want of Faith it self â—oâ— sometime a man may doubt meerly as doubting of the sincerity of â—â— own Faith and not at all doubting of the truth of the Word of God But when it is the doubting whether the promises be sure which makeâ— a man doubt whether he shall be saved this doubting is the debility â—â— Faith 229. The same may be said of dispair That dispair is from the weakness or want of Faith which cometh from an unbelief of the truth of the Promise And that also is pernicious dispair which from what Cause soever is so great as to take men off the use of necessary means to attain Salvation But that dispair which cometh from overmuch self-condemning and a conceit that a mans heart is false and not that Gods Promise is false may stand with true Faith and Salvation if it be not so great as to take him off the use of necessary means 230. No man ordinarily can be assured of his Salvation or Justification without extraordinary Revelation but by being assured first of the â—ruth of Gods Promise and of his own sincerity in believing For his assurance is of the conclusion of this argument Whosoever sincerely believeth and repenteth is justified But I sincerely believe and repent â—herefore I am justified And the weakness of the apprehension of either of the premises is ever in the conclusion which always followeth partem debiliorem 231. There are therefore but two sorts of men who can believe that they are justified by a Faith properly called Divine that is which is a belief of Gods Word herein 1. Those that God revealeth it to by proâ—hetical or extraordinary Revelation if there be any such 2. Those who are more certain of their own sincere Faith than they are that Gods Word it self is true if any such there be in the world For with all others the certainty of the sincerity of their own Faith being weakest â—he conclusion followeth it 232. If any man can possibly doubt more of the truth of Gods Word â—han of the soundness of his own Faith though that mans Faith may be called Divine it is no honour to it because it hath so much doubting of Gods Word mixed with belief And it 's like his greater assurance of his belief of it is but his error or infirmity 233. Ordinarily therefore no Christians can believe fide Divina that they are justified and shall be saved that is this is no Word of God but a conclusion of which one of the premises only and that the stronger is Gods Word 234. To say that he that believeth shall be saved is equivalent to this I shall be saved is not true nor reasonable seeing I believe is not Gods Word nor so certain as Gods Word And one of the premises is not equal to both 245. When they say That it 's all one when I am sure that
our tongues from accustomed vain words to restrain strong passions upon great provocations especially to forsake Sins of privation and omission such as are unbelief as mixed with a weak Faith and fears mixed with hopes and coldness of desire and prayer and sluggishness of labour and endeavour c. A man may be truly willing to be stronger in all Grace and to do all duty better and to forsake all such Sins as these when yet through the meer weakness of his Graces or Spiritual life he cannot so exactly watch nor so diligently labour nor so patiently hold out as the case requireth Though it be not a Physical but a Moral power which he wanteth and that culpably yet such Sins may more consist with true Grace than the former and therefore are called â—â—â—s of Infirmity 317. 13. When Ignorance of Truth Duty or Sin cometh from an â—willingness to know it or an unwillingness to use the known means â— help us to the knowledge of it the neglect of such an unknown â—ruth or Duty and the committing of such an unknown Sin is to be â—dged of according to the measure of the foresaid willingness or â—nwillingness 318. 14. For he is not sincerely willing to know a Truth to do a â—uty to forsake a Sin who is not willing to use the known necessary â—eaus appointed for these ends For he vilifieth God and Holiness who â—inketh them not worthy the seeking by such means To say would love God and please him and be saved if I could do it â—ith a wish or without these means is no saving desire 119. 15. And to desire to be delivered from Sin and to hate it â— Sin and yet to love it for the pleasure so much more as that the â—terest of God and Heaven in us is not strong enough to make us haâ—â—tually willing both to leave it and to avoid the temptations and â—se the pleasure but men had rather keep it than leave it on these â—rms this is no sincere repentance nor sign of a holy heart or life 320. 16. Even the Habit of a particular lesser Sin as of jeasting â—â—le words idle thoughts c. may be stronger than the contrary parâ—â—cular habit I think and thereby a man may habitually and actually live â—â—d die in the Sin and yet that habit not prevail against the radical â—â—bit of Holiness of Faith Hope Love and Obedience in the â—â—ain 321. 17. A present full Resolution against Sins that are Great and of â—ie desertion to a willing mind is essential to Repentance as is also a â—â—esent Resolution for great and necessary Duties and to forsake some â—â—aller Sins though it be necessary necessitate praecepti I think is not â—â—sential to saving Conversion and Repentance and necessary necessitate â—edii to Salvation 322. 18. He that committeth a Gross sin that is a Sin evidently â—reat and in the power of a willing mind to forbear so often as â—oth shew that habitually he more loveth it than hateth it and had â—ther keep it than leave it doth shew thereby that all his professed â—epentance for it is unsound and his heart unsanctified and that he â—ath yet no actual pardon from God 323. Therefore those among the Papists who absolve such from their â—ns who commit Fornication or Drunkenness once a month at least â—r once in many months or often and come between and say I Repent â—o but delude them For the nature of those Sins is such that he that â— converted to an habitual hatred of them more than he hath a love â—o them cannot return to them so oft And he that doth not so hate â—hem doth not truly repent And even their Hildebrand Greg. 7. â—â— a Council at Rome expresly saith that neither false Baptism nor false â—a feigned and unsound Repentance do put away Sin 324. 19. The chief tryal of a man's Holiness and Repentance is by â—he main scope and business of his life especially in the positive part â—nd next in the oppositive when a man is conscious that God and Hoâ—iness and Heaven are his great end which are dearer to him and more â—owerful with him than all things sensible and the interest of the flesh â—nd when he can and doth deliberately forsake all when they stand in â—pposition to or competition with God and Glory and so as to the course of his life doth live by Faith and not by sense this is the true evidence of true Conversion and no Sins are damning which consist with this 325. 20. But because the truth of this must be discerned not only by present Sense and Resolution but by practice to prove that Resolution true therefore no man can be certain of the sincerity of his own heart and resolutions and repentance but by the practice of willing universal obedience forsaking gross and wilful Sinning performing â—â—cessary duty striving to overcome infirmities and heartily desiring perfect Holiness upon terms of Mortification Self-denyal and diligâ—â— use of means 326. Therefore much sinning will at least breed much doubtfulness and uncertainty of Justification and Salvation and till it be forsaken no such certainty will be had SECT XXII Few certain of Salvation The Consequents of this in order to our Concord herein 327. I conclude therefore that certainty of Justification and sincerity is not the lot of the weakest or weaker sort of Christians but of the strong confirmed Christians only By weak Christians I mean not those that have weakest natural parts and common gifts as Learning Memory Utterance c. But those that have the weakest Faith Hope Love Humility c. For Grace is not certainly discernable 1. In the least degree 2. When it is little in action 3. When it is much clouded and oft I wonder that worthy Deodate and Tronchinus in their suffrages at Dort say pag. 49 50. Notitiam sensum certitudinem istius Decreti Deus electis in hac vita largitur modo mensura tempore quo ipsi placet Ncc ullus est electus qui aetate rationis capace non ante mortem certissiman istius decreti persuasionem per Spiritum Sanctum accipiat I hope they mean but an effect objectively certain The many Texts cited by them else prove it not conquered by its contrary But only when 1. It is strong and in a good degree 2. And much in act 3. And conquereth opposition 328. Therefore few Christians have Assurance at the first or of a considerable time because few are strong at first 329. Yea therefore few ever attain to certainty who are sincere because most are still weak and few come to strength and a great degree and to much activity and great conquest of all the contrary Sins of heart and life 330. This being the case about certainty of Justification as to the certainty of perseverance might a man judge by the conveniencies of the truth it would draw us to think that the middle way of the Dominicans and some others were the right viz. 1. That
Some of you will grant that as motion causeth motion by contact of bodies so the first effect on the soul can cause the second And others of you will deny it and say that Gods Actions being diversified only by the diversity of effects and objects that which causeth the second effect is to be denominated a second Action and not the same numerically which caused the first no nor specifically if the effects specifically differ And so as scholastick wits here exercise their curiosity without respect to Arminianism or Calvinism you will here fall into notional Controversies in the way § 20. 2. But granting that the first effect is that efficacious Grace which must cause the second how shall we know what the first effect is and what the second Gods Grace like the Sun is still shining though we are not still receiving it When it worketh but the commoner sort of effects these tend to more and more The first Gracious effect may be forty years before Conversion But this is not your meaning But I suppose you will say that it is the first special effect or gratia operata that is proper to the saved which you mean But to pass by that Augustine Prosper Fulgentius much more their predecessors held that sincere faith Love holiness Justification present right to Life if they so dyed are not proper to the saved but that some lose all these If you say but proper to the Justified or Sanctified or Converted or it be the first effect which is proprium Justificandis which you mean Are we agreed what that is § 21. Either the first effect on the soul or the first Gratia operata is the Act of faith it self or somewhat antecedent If the Act as many subtilly maintain then it were a foolish question to ask Whether the Act of faith be Effectual to cause it self and How Therefore it must be somewhat antecedent or we can find no matter for our Controversie de efficacia Gratiae ad credendum § 22. If somewhat antecedent to the Act it is either a Disposition or Infused Habit or an Impression Impulse or Influx which is neither Disposition nor Habit. * * * Dico 1. Non certo constare ex divinis literis esse hujusmodi Habitus supernaturales 2. At baptizatis infunditur Gratia â—o sensu quod efficiuntur Dâ—o grati consortes divinae naturae renati 3. Conceditur Dei adjutorium ut credamus velimuâ— diligamus per inspirationem infusionem spiritus sancti 4. Dei adjutorium desuper infusum est omnino necessarium ut credamus diligamus c. non tantum ut facilius credamus Medina in 12. q. 51. p. 282. See many definitions of a Habit confuted in Medina 1. 2. p. 271. and that which he resteth in is Aristotles Qualitas quâ rectè vel malè afficimur § 23. 1. A proper Habit of faith it is not Though Mr. Pemble singularly seem so to think yet he meaneth but a seminal disposition And it 's commonly held that the Habit is given by sanctification after the Act given in Vocation 2. But if it were otherwise the Habit is not alwayes sufficient to ascertain the Act. For holy men oft sin against a Habit and believers do not alwayes exercise it Habits Incline per modum naturae but do not certainly determine to the act 3. And of a Disposition it must be so said much more § 24. 2. And if it be an Impulse or Influxus Receptus as I think we must affirm this is but a general notion of which our understanding is very crude or small A meer Motus it is not For as was said in the beginning the Divine Influx is threefold viz. From Vital-Activity or Power Wisdom and Love to Life Light and Love in man Now as I said if there be no such Impulse besides the Life Light and Love produced our Controversie is at an end For these are not efficacious or efficient of themselves But if such a different Impulse there be it 's hard to know what it is in man I conceive it best expressed by all these inadequate notions conjunct 1. An inward urgency to this threefold act which is called in the Schools both auxilium concurse and Influx 2. By which Urgency the soul is more Disposed to the Act in hoc ordine than it was before 3. Which Disposition containeth in it a Moral Power to that Act so ordered and somewhat more even some Inclination to perform it If any man can tell me better what that Divine Impulse is which is antecedent to mans Act I am willing to learn § 25. Now if this be the question Whether this Divine Impulse which is the first effect of Gods spirit be of its own nature efficacious to produce According to Jansenius the first Grace is Necessary Delectation or Love in act before that which is free and full And if so then there is no grace causing this grace and so none to be the subject of this question Whether it be more or less sufficient or effectual operating or co-operating grace which maketh one man love God initially rather than another For it is no Grace bâ— Gods essential will this Love be the first Grace and no received Impulse antecedent to it our Faith Love c. as the second effect I answer 1. Sometimes Gods Impulse is so Great as propriâ vi doth change mind and will and overcome resistance and procure our act 2. Sometimes it is so strong as that it prevaileth against the contrary ill-disposition so far as to give man a Moral Power to the Act with some Inclination which yet contrary habits and temptations do overcome and the Act doth not follow which yet was not for want of Power to have done it And this is called sufficient Grace 3. We have great reason to believe that as in some Instances Gods greater Impress is the chief differencing Cause so in other Instances an equal Impulse of God on unequally disposed subjects doth produce the Act of faith c. in one of them which it produceth not in the other through the incapacity of the recipient 4. Therefore there is a double degree of efficacy or Vis One which only so far moveth and helpeth the will as that it can do the act and sometime doth it without more Another which is so strong as that the second effect alwayes followeth it 5. But whenever the Act of faith is produced by force or Impulse more or less God is the first and principal cause of it and man but the second and the praise of it is accordingly due And I think this decision accommodateth both sides of our contenders § 26. The foresaid Impulse or first effect is only the work of God and the means and not ours But the Act of Faith Love c. is Gods work and ours and ours as Free-agents Therefore that Impulse of God which is Aptitudinally efficacious on supposition of mans due reception and self-excitation
be an Active Spirit * Indifferentia Voluntatis in ordine ad auxilium praevium est indifferentia passiva caeterum in ordint ad actum liberum quâ—m producit praedeterminata tali motionâ— praevia indifferentia Voluntatis est activa libera Alvarez de Aux disp 23. pag. 115. and therefore what ever it receiveth it receiveth it as it is in that nature 2. But the same soul is Passive as well as Active and that in the prior instant of nature For it must receive from God the first cause which made the Greek antient Doctors and many of the Latines say as Damascene in sense though in grosser words that the soul in respect to bodies was immaterial or incorporeal but it was material in respect of God § 2. Not only in its Receiving the Spirits first Impulse to Believe the soul is Passive before it is Active but also in its Reception of every sort of Divine Influx even to every natural act So that in this there is no difference between Conversion and any common act For the soul is first passive in allâ— even in receiving that Natural Influx by which we Live and Move and Be. § 3. But the soul which is passive in Receiving Gods Impulse to believe the first effect is Active in the producing of its own Act of believing which is the effect of many Concauses And as I said It is not the Habit of faith properly so called which it passively Receiveth before the Act. SECT XVIII Whether the first Grace and the New and Soft Heart be Promised and Given Absolutely or on any Condition on our part And so of faith it self Answ § 1. BY the first Grace is meant either simply the first or the first special renewing Grace on the soul proper to them that shall be Justified Of the first Grace simply there is no Condition for it is given Universally to all viz. a Reprieval a Law of Grace a Redeemer c. And after this there is much common personal mercy given conditionally and much absolutely to all or some * * * And as to the first moving inward Grace see how copiously the Jesuit Ruiz as Vasquez and others proveth that it hath no initium in us no not an occasion or disposition much less merit for which it is given And he reasoneth from the Names Creation Generation by the seed of God resuscitation and Gods being found of them that sought him not and from the Cause of the difference between man and man De pradest Tr. 3. disp 18. â— 4 5 6 7 8 c. p. 227 228 c. Even Medina 12. p. 596. is so hesitant as to say Esse probabilem sententiam Doctorum quod facienti quod in se est ex facultate naturae Deus ex sua misericordia nunquam denegat gratiam Sed dico quod probabilius est magis consentaneum sanctis patriâ—us praeclpuâ— Augustino non esse Legem infallibilem quod homini pâ—â—atori facienti quod in se est ex facultate natura continub conferatur gratia Nam si esser Lex infallibilis certè initium bona pars justificationis esset à nobis c. Thus the Papists herein differ as much as the Protestants among themselves § 2. It seemeth to me an error which by oversight I was long entangled in my self to think that by the new and soft heart is meant the first special Grace For most Divines agree that it is proper sanctification which is meant by it as distinct from antecedent Vocation Vid. Ames Medul de Vocat Rolloc de Vocat Bishop G. Downame against Pemble Hookers Souls Vocation Joh. Rogers of faith and many others In Vocation they suppose the Act of Faith and Repentance suscitated by the Spirit and thereupon a Covenant-Relation to Christ and to the Holy Ghost with Regenerating Sanctifying Habits â—o be given And I see no reason to be singular herein § 3. That faith is by the Law of Grace made a Condition of this Sanctification and the Spirit promised us if we will believe and so the Spirit given to us by Covenant in Baptism when we believe is plain ill Scripture and the commonest doctrine of all Divines § 4. Therefore if it be this Spirit of Sanctification that is meant by the New the Tender the Circumcised heart it is not promised and given absolutely but on condition of faith § 5. Let us peruse the several Texts where it is promised Dent. 30. 1 2 3 6. When thou shalt call to mind among all the Nations and shalt return unto the Lord thy God and obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day thou and thy children with â—â— thy heart and all thy soul that then the Lord thy God will turn thy câ—â—tivity And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou maist live Here it is a Grace consequent to a condition even to much obedience which is described And Deut. 10. 16. it is a command Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiff-necked Jer. 32. 36 37 c. I will gather them out of all Countreys whither I have driven them and will bring them again into this place and I will cause them to dwell safely and they shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may fear me for ever So Ezek. 11. 16 17 18 19 20. And Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 29. In all which there is a promissory Prophecy how great a deliverance God would give the Nation of the Jews both for body and soul And their temporal return and liberty is promised and prophesied in the same manner as a new heart is But here is not a syllable to prove that this is the first special Grace any more than perseverance is which in the same manner is promised in Jer. 32. 40. I will put my fear in their hearts and they shall not depart To say nothing how far in the first sense this was National to the Jews nor how the performance did expound it For doubtless it is performed the Text it self premiseth I will be their God and they shall be my people with other mercies And no doubt but Faith and Repentance go before this Covenant-Relation to God and therefore before the following gift of the Spirit ver 9. and Ch. 11. 19. And Ezek. 18. 31. the same is commanded Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit § 6. The promissory Prophecy of Jer. 31. 31 c. is recited by the Penman of Heb. 8. 8 c. to prove the cessation of the old Jewish Câ—venant and that a better should succeed And this much is easily proved out of both 1. That God would certainly have a holy people among the
returning Israelites 2. And especially that he would have such in the Christian Church as should be sanctified to him by his Spirit and have a new and tender â—eart And Predestination is well proved from the Text. But there is not a word to prove this to be the first Grace nor that Gods promise gave any man right to it but upon condition of believing For if Gods Decree Prophecy or general Promise saying absolutely I will do it did prove it to be the first Grace it would prove perserance such which is false The words prove no more but that God will do it § 7. And as this is no personal promise giving any man a right to the thing promised which he may claim but only foretelling what God will do or give to some so he hath other promises which are part of his Law of Grace and do give men Right to these same Benefits And so the Spirit of Sanctification and a new heart is promised on Condition of believing which therefore is the former special Grace § 8. If any therefore will prove that faith is given Absolutely they must not do it by those Texts which speak of Sanctification which faith is a condition of § 9. But as to the question it self Whether Faith be given absolutely or conditionally I answer 1. There is no absolute promise of faith made to any persons but only promissory predictions of some indeterminate unnamed persons that God will draw them and give them to Christ and they shall believe and live 2. All men have means and duty appointed them for the seeking of that Grace which may convert them 3. They are hereby bound to believe that if they so do they shall not lose their labour For God setteth men on no unprofitable work 4. Those that do this most faithfully and have most preparing grace are the likest to become believers and the ordinary receivers of special grace 5. Whether de nomine this encouragement shall be called a promise or equipollent let them contend that list 6. God can and doth suddenly convert some without such preparations or else give them both sorts of Grace immediately as once SECT XIX How God may be said to Cause the Acts of sin I Have said of this also so much before as that this Breviate here must serve It is ill said Profiteâ— mur incunctanter prorsus impeditum iri quod universi simpliciter Bonum est si impeditetur peccatum quoniam hâ—â— pactâ— impediretur patesactio Divinâ— misericordiâ— parcentis justitia vindicant is Quâ— quidem patesactio non minus universi Bonum censenda est quam qâ—â—libet alia câ—jusâ—ibet Del proprietatis in ipso tanquam in speculo relâ—cent is Twiss Vindic Grat. li. 1. p. 1. pag. 133. It is dangerous to talk so boldly of these mysteries Here seem to me many errors and confusions 1. It is false that God could not make known to the world that merciful nature which now pardoneth sin and that Justice which now punisheth if there had been no sin His Laws Promises and Threats do antecedently make them known And God could cause blessed Spirits to know all his perfections before there was any sin 2. Gods Holiness and Goodness is called Mercy and Justice by extrinsick denomination and connotation of sin and misery And if his Holiness and Goodness had been known as preventing all sin and misery men will think that he hath not proved that this had been Evil in the Universe or less Good 3. Posita Divina Volitione as the rule of Good it followeth I confess that it were evil not to have that will fulfilled But I deny that God willeth sin or its existence Therefore it is not Good because not Volitum à Deo It is sufficient that it is not so far evil as to be Absolutè Nolitum but only evil 1. As prohibitum 2. As hurtful to the sinner and to others Methinks they that maintain that sin is Privatio should not say that it is Positivè Volitum à Deo 4. All this dependeth on that curious question Could not God have made the World better than it is or at least as good with many alterations from what it is They that hold the first say that God freely made things no better than they are But had there been no Devils no Sin no Toads no disorder the world had been better that is a perfecter demonstration of Gods perfection But they that are more modest arâ— content with the latter and say that God freely made things as they are and not necessarily But it had been necessarily if no other way had been as good And that if God had pleased to shew his Goodness by preventing all sin it had been as Good and no loss or disparagement to the Universe 5. And he doth through all his Books beg the question Whether a meer occasion be a conducibâ—e medium and so good If he will stretch the word Medium so wide as to extend it to a meer evil sinâ— quo non or presupposed which hath not the least causality efficient material formal or final I will not strive for a word But conducibile noteth some kind and degree of Causality which sin hath not to the glorifying of God It is the destroying of sin that God is glorified by Where the malum amovendum is not the bonum conducibile but the ill state of the matter without which God had not glorified himself by this Act but by some other as well § 1. It must be well considered that God made mans Nature before he made any positive Laws for him And that the Law of Nature it self is in order of Nature after Nature though not in Time Man being first considerable as Man before he be considerable as obliged to duty And also that the Law both Natural and Positive is before mans obedience and sin So that as man is first in order of Nature Man and then Gods Governable Subject and then in order of Time obedient or disâ—bedient so God is first his Creator and then Naturâ— Motor and then his Governour by Legislation and then his Gracious Helper and lastly his Judge and Rewarder § 2. Therefore as Natural Being substance and faculties and Natural Motion are antecedent to Morality so Gods causation of both these is antecedent and therefore to be Creator Preserver and Motor is not to be the Cause of sin or of Virtuous acts as such § 3. God as Creator was not pleased to make all his creatures of one kind nor of one degree of excellence but in such variety as is wonderful to our observation Besides the innumerable species of beings and the innumerable parts of every compound being the dissimilitude of indviduals of the same species is admirable so that no two faces are perfectly like no nor no two Stones in the Street no two Trees Birds Beasts c. And therefore it is but consonant to the rest of his works that MAN is neither perfectly like
Holiness in all that have sin and not holiness and in the Godly so far as they sin because that it shall be so is more yea only willed by God and caused by his predetermination XXXVII Q. Whether this doctrine tend not to utter Infidelity as to the Christian faith by making it seem to men incredible Is it credible that God sent his Son so wonderfully to expiate those sins which he so loved and caused as aforesaid and to save his people from their sins which God thus unavoiâ—ably moved them to commit and to destroy the works of God under the name of destroying the works of the Devil Must Christ suffer bleed die and bear Gods wrath for that which God unavoidably made man do by his principal determination And is it easie for him that believeth one of these to believe the other XXXVIII Q. How will men preach and hear the Gospel if they do it in congruity with this doctrine Will they say God sent us to beseech and charge you not to do that sinful act which you cannot do unless he make you do it by predetermination and which you cannot avoid if he so make you do it He beseecheth and importuneth you to do all those commanded acts which you can no more do than make a world unless he predetermine you to do them nor can forbear them if he do XXXIX Q. How will men Repent confess resist temptations pray and use the means of Grace if they believe that all sinful acts in the world are thus unavoidably Caused and Willed and Loved of God as good for his Glory XL. Q. Whether they that teach as Dr. Twisse often that sin is not malum Dei sed nostri do not take it to be no injury to God nor displeasing to his will Or is not injury and displeasing evil in respect to God as the terminus though it be no hâ—rt to him nor his evil as the subject or agent And doth not the opinion that it 's Evil only to us and Good to God as conducible to his glory teach men to hate it only out of self-love and not out of love to the glory of God yea to Love it as conducible to Gods Glory more than to hate it as evil to our selves seeing Gods Glory must be preferred above our selves XLI Q. Is not sin thus made a coequal with Christ who is but a means to the glorifying of God to which faith Dr. Twisse sin is summè conductbile XLII Q. Doth not this doctrine make the sanctification of the Holy Ghost to be unnecessary when all that is to be done to save us from sin is for God not to make us sin by his premotion Or doth it not make sanctification to be nothing but this predetermination of God which is made as necessary to sin as to duty and so natural and gracious operations made the same and God to do as much to produce evil efficiently as good XLIII Q. Is it not much worse to man if God by predetermination make him first a sinner and wicked by sinful Habits and then damn him for it than if he should damn an innocent man for nothing For sin and pain is far worse than pain without sin And to compel the will unwillingly to sin were it possible is less than to make it willing XLIV Doth not he that affirmeth that the Devil doth but sin as efficiently predetermined by God and doth not force nor determine any mans will to any sinful act but that God predetermineth all men and Devils to every sinful act committed I say doth he not describe God as worse than Satan horresco quaerens if sin be the denominating evil and the causing of sin be more than tempting to it Had I not rather my will were resistibly tempted to sin than unresistibly made to sin by predetermining efficient premotion XLV Is not the objective Reason in Devils of mans implanted Enmity against them Gen. 3. 15. because they are Enemies to God and us as being themselves Lovers of sin and Tempters of us to sin and misery XLVI Doth not he take the directest course to root out the Love of God and all Religion from the World and to tempt men to hate God and so to begin a Hell on Earth who describeth God in Satans likeness and much worse as much as being the principal cause of all sin in men and Devils is worse than sinning when predetermined and tempting others to it XLVII I think that the Dominican Predetermination directly and necessarily overthroweth all certainty of Divine Revelation by man or Angel and consequently all certainty of the Christian faith even by overthrowing the very formal object the Divine Veracity For if God efficiently premove and predetermine all wills and tongues and pens to all the lies that ever are made in the world then 1. To do so is not inconsistent with his perfections or his will 2. And then we can never know when he doth not so unless by the event This is grounded on these suppositions 1. That Gods revelations to us are not Immediate only by himself but by some Creature Angel or Man or a created voice or sign 2. That the Ratio certitudinis of such Revelations by a Creature is because it is God that is the chief author of them 3. That it is not conceiveable how God can by any way of Revelation be more the author of it than by physical efficient immediate adequate predetermining both will and tongue to the act with all its circumstances Call it by what name you please Inspiration Vision Illumination Impulse c. it can speak nothing more of Gods Agent efficient Interest than this predetermination doth 4. If it did do more yet it would overthrow all certainty of our faith Because if God can efficiently cause and that as the total principal cause by predetermination all the lies that ever were told in the world we can never be sure that the other mode of his operation so far differeth from this as that he cannot be the chief cause of a lie in this way as well as of all lies by predetermination I have driven many to say their utmost and could never yet hear any such difference assigned as could prove any Inspiration whatsoever to have more of Divine Causality in it than physical predetermination doth signifie and import nor how this principle leaveth us any certainty that the tongues of all the Prophets and Apostles were not predetermined to speak falsly ab antecedente and so their pens XLVIII To say that God is not able to make a Creature with power to determine any one Volition of its own even as modified comparate or circumstantiate without his efficient physical predetermination aforesaid sayeth more against Gods Omnipotency though on pretence of a contradiction than I dare say or think XLIX Yet after all this I grant that if all proper free will and contingency be denyed and every act in the world as comparate and circumstantiate made
doctrine of faith and Law and promises of Christaâ—e the Means which the Spirit useth in operating our Faith Love and Obedience And it is not two Covenants that give these two but as soul and body make one man so the Word of Christ and his Spirit make up one total cause of our sanctification The Spirit causeth us to believe that which the Word revealeth and to love the good which it proposeth and to obey the Precepts of the Word Therefore the Gospel is Grace and the Spirit is Grace that is a free gift of God to miserable sinners for their recovery and inward holiness is the effect of both And to feign that all obedience as it is performed to Christs Law upon its proper motives is therefore not of the Spirit or is our own Righteousness opposed to Christs because our own reason and free-will is exercised in it is Phanaticism and subverteth the Gospel and the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ II. God never gave a Law no not to the Jews only to convince them that they could not keep it but to be the Rule of their obedience And the Just did keep it in sincerity But the Law of Moses as separated by the ignorant Jews from the promise and grace of Christ could not be kept by any to Justification To say that Christs Laws now have no higher end than to tell us that we cannot keep them is Antichristianity Are we commanded to repent believe love God only to tell us that we cannot do it It 's true that without the Spirits help we cannot But it 's as true that the Command is the Rule of our duty and all the Gospel and Covenant of Grace is the means of exciting us to our duty by which the Spirit worketh in us faith repentance love and obedience But saith Jansenius the Law of Christ is to humble men in the sense of their disability and drive them to seek to Christ for his grace I answer 1. Is not humbling men and driving them to Christ a good effect If so then his Law is the means of all that good 2. Were the Gospel and all the Apostles Epistles written only to drive men to Christ and not to edifie them and make them perfect to salvation Were not the Precepts of Love and Holiness means of working Love and Holiness in men Is not the Word the seed that begetteth men to eternal life and is not the receiving of this seed into good and honest hearts made by Christ the cause of holiness and salvation Were not the Disciples clean by the word that Christ spake to them and doth he not say that his Word was spirit and life as being the concause of the Spirits vivification He that never received more benefit by Christs Doctrine Law and Gospel than to be convinced that he cannot believe repent obey or love God hath not yet the benefit which they are principally intended for But suppose that by Law he had meant the meer penal part or threatning as some words would make a man suspect 1. It 's a strange description of a Law to exclude the precept and premiant part and include only the penal part which is the last and least 2. As it is the same Man that hath Love and Hatred Hope and Fear so it is the same Law of Christ which hath precept and prohibition promise and penalty And it is the same Holiness or New Creature which is a conformity to all together Of which more anon III. He can never prove that all unbelievers have no Power to â—â—e any means which tendeth to â—aith by a preparatory grace nor that the use of all such means is Impossible to them XIII His distinction of Natural and Moral Impotency is good But then that Moral Impotency it self must not be made the same with the Natural else there will be the same reason for excusing sin by it If mans Will had been made by God such as could not possibly love him or holiness it would not have left a man unexcusable in judgement that his enmity was Voluntary It is reason enough for a man to kill a â—oad or Serpent as malum sibi naturale because it is a hurtful creature But this is no Moral Evil in them nor is their death their punishment nor yet in any ravenous creature which preyeth on the rest that are innocent And so would it be with bad men if God had made them bad Indeed if Adam have made them all bad and God have given no Saviour Grace or Remedy they are conâ—emnable and unexcusable as they were virtually in Adam if judged only by the Law of Innocency as made to Adam But they are excuseable if judged by Christ by the Law of grace which condemneth no man meerly as not innocent or a sinner but as a rejecter of grace These things are so plain and weighty that Jaâ—senius should not joyn with the Antinomians in opposing them XIV While he confesseth that Christ so far dyed for all as to procure them all the mercy which he giveth them I have no further quarrel with him but to prove that a Condition pardon of sin and grant of Life eternal with much means and help to make men perform the Condition which is but a suitable Acceptance is indeed mercy XVI That Christs grace is Love or Complacency in good is a truth which I highly value but with all these exceptions to his doctrine 1. It is the Heart of the new Creature and that which must communicate it self to all the rest or else they are lifeless and unacceptable For the will is the man in Gods account And complacency or love or appetite is the first act of the will which is it that he calleth with Augustine Delectation Grace lyeth principally in a Placet But the man hath more parts than his Heart And all other parts of sanctification are graces of Christ in their several places and not love only 2. Though no man is to love himself as God nor instead of God nor above God nor as the noblest ultimate object of his love yet all men are necessitated by nature to love themselves and therefore to desire their own felicity in loving God next to God as the final object of that love And so our end is finis amantis vel amicitiae which includeth mutual complacency and union though not in equality And to such an end grace causeth us to use the means And Christ is proposed to us as our Saviour and all his grace as for our good and all Gods commands as necessary for our happiness and sin is described to us to be hated as our oâ—â— evil and destruction and against our good as well as against Gods will and honour And with us this is denyed scarcely by the Antinoâ—ians themselves Much less by any judicious Christians 3. It is past the reach of any of us to prove that our actual love is the first effect of the sanctifying Spirit on the soul
that all mankind are now from under the meer Covenant of Innocency and that none perish but for the abuse of mercy which had a tendency to their recovery The case of Infants must be spoke to in its place once for all But all this belongeth to the Case of Grace and Free-will * How Augustine distinguished Election to Justification and to Glory See him lib. 1. ad simplic q. 2. Et quae de â—o habet Vasquez in 1. Thom. disp 89. cap. 6. And 2. As for Election we say that 1. The Object of Gods Will to glorifie men is man sanctifying and persevering in an immediate capacity for Glory in esse cognito 2. The Object of Gods Will to give the Grace of perseverance is a fore-seen sanctified person in the next capacity 3. The Object of Gods Will to justifie sanctifie and adopt is a fore-seen Believer 4. The Object of Gods Will to give special Grace which shall effectually cause men to repent and believe is ordinarily a fore-seen disposed Sinner prepared by his common Grace but sometimes an unprepared Sinner whom of his free will he will suddenly convert as it pleaseth him freely to distribute his benefits all being unworthy 5. The Object of Gods Will to give the highest degrees of common Grace external in the purest preaching of the Gospel and other mercies and internal in greater helps of the Spirit is sometimes a Sinner in esse cognito who hath not grosly rejected lower helps and sometimes freely the worser sort of Sinners who have abused former mercies 6. The Object of Gods Will to give the first common mercy which hath a tendency in its use to mens recovery and Salvation is all mankind fallen in Adam For all are under the New Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. 15. in some degree and with Noah and all have much mercy tending to Repentance and none are left as the Devils in dispair without any offered remedy or help 7. The Object of Gods Will to give man the Covenant of Innocency was Adam fore-seen as meer man 8. The Object of Gods Will to create man was nothing in the sense that we now take an Object in that is for the materia circa quam But if you will call the intended effect the Object then the Object of Gods Will here and in the rest is the thing willed But if you will needs presume to seek one higher in the Mind of God * Man knoweth by Reception and so hath Ideas But God can be no Recipient you must say that it was man as conceived fit to be as well as possible For we can think no otherwise of the Divine Conceptions and Volitions but as we are led by the analogy of humane acts And so we must say that 1. Gods Power maketh it possible for all things to be 2. Next God knoweth them possible 3. He knoweth what is convenient or fit to be made to his unsearchable ends 4. He willeth that they shall be and man among the rest and so on If you will needs have the order of Decrees this is all that we can say of them A. All this pleaseth us well but it will not please your own Party or the Calvinists that you make so many acts of Election which they tell you is but one entire thing as mentioned in Scripture Nor yet that you lay every Decree or Will upon fore-sight B. You are mistaken No moderate considerate man of them will deny any thing that I have said For 1. As to the Scripture use of the word Election it is not the meer name that we are now opening but the matter in question Nor is it the expounding of particular Texts that I am upon And if I were no man will deny but that the word Election is variously used in the Scripture Sometime for Gods eternal Will to make us Christians of Infidels and to save us by Christ and sometime for actual choosing us by converting Grace in time and sometime for actual choosing men in time by Vocation to some office or special work c. 2. And as to the distinguishing of all these Volitions of God no man will deny the effects to be distinct undoubtedly these are various effects of God 1. To make man 2. To give him the Covenant of Innocency 3. To give him the Covenant of Grace with all the common mercies of it 4. To give some Persons and Nations the Gospel and other mercies above the greatest part of the World with answerable helps of the Spirit 5. To give men special Grace effectual for Faith and Repentance 6. To give men Pardon Adoption and Sanctification 7. To give men Perseverance 8. To give them Glory And if these are various works either you will distinguish of Gods Will by his various works or not * Sive secundum nostram rationem distinguamus illud decretum in plura five dicamus esse unicum non est multum curandum Certum enim est apud omnes Deum omnia singula volutsse unico simplicissimo acta suae voluntatis Est enim ipsius voluntas voluntatis operatio idem quod sua essentia simplex individua si aliquis contenderet esse etiam nostro modo intelligendi esse unicum actum simplicissimum voluntatis ego non cur abo Vasquez in 1. Tho q. 14. a. 13. disp 65. And is not this à short end of many Controversies If you do not our whole Controversie about the Order of the Decrees is quickly at an end and I am content with the abreviation For where there is no Distinction there is no Order And when I distinguish them never so much I say as well as any that they are all one in regard of the one Will or Essence of God that willeth them In God there is no real diversity but his Will is thus variously denominated extrinsecally from its respect to the various objects to which it doth transire and of the various effects which it produceth And thus do all men talk of God Else they could not distinguish his saving Will from his damning Will nor Election from Rejection in his Decree So that no man can tell how to differ here 3. And as to fore-sight you as much mistake For 1. I say not that God fore-seeth any good in any man but what he giveth him and willeth to give him But we speak of the Order of those Volitions in the way of execution * Alex. Ales is noted by Vasquez and others as singular for holding that Predestination to the first Grace was upon fore-sight of the future good use of that Grace as the cause But he denieth that the first Grace is actually given on the same Cause Therefore Vasquez thinks he changed his mind 2. And all men that ascribe Intentions Volitions or Purposes to God do and must make the Object of them as such to be Quid cognitum or something which some call an Idea in the Mind of God It
his own Will that this shall be the Order But as to Gods Acts or Volitions following mans 1. They no way follow mans but as Objects which Objects in their natures and qualifications relatively terminate or by connotation denominate Gods Volitions 2. And do you or any man deny that Doth not Gods Knowledge Praeteritorum Existentium suppose the preterition or existence of Objects Doth not Gods complacential Volition of the holiness and glory of his Creatures presuppose that holiness and glory Doth not Gods hatred of past or existent sin presuppose it C. But what can God fore see in man till he first decree to cause it or at least decree that it shall exist B. Sin He decreeth neither and yet fore-seeth it of which lib. 1. The seventh Crimination C. * Aliqui scholastici minus caute de gratia Dei loquuntur Patres negarent â—mne meritum causam occasionem ex nobis praedestinationis nostrae ut oftender ent gratiam in tempore omninâ— gratis sint aliquo horum nobis donari Vasq in 1. Tho. qu. 23 disp 91. c. 10. But some of them say that the Gospel it self yea and the first special Grace is given to men upon merit of congruity though not of condignity and so is decreed on that fore-seen B. 1. We mind not what some odd persons say but what the moderate and sober say whom we are reconciling 2. But I pray you wherein do you differ from these Is it in words or sense also C. In both I hold no such merit fore-sight or decree B. Do you hold that there is such a thing as common Grace distinct from special C. Yes so do all Protestants B. Is it not every mans Duty to make a good use of the common Grace or Mercies which he hath as in order to his Repentance and Salvation C. Yes He that had but one Talent should have improved it B. Is not a man that doth this as far as common Grace will go more disposed and prepared to receive special Grace than one that hath long abused it and derideth God and godliness C. Yes no doubt some such are not far from the Kingdom of God B. Have not * Doct. of Faith Mr. Jo. Rogers Mr. Tho Hooker Mr. Rob. Bolton †Instruct for Comfort Consc Read Vasq iâ— 1. Tho. qu. 23. a. 4. disp 9. throughout proving that Predestination to the first Grace is not upon foreseen Merit no nor upon any fore-seen Cause sine qua non no nor Condition sine qua non c. and against Cassianus and the Massilienses and the Greek Fathers that the initium primae gratiae praedestinationis is not from our free will Yea c. 10. opposing Scotus Grabriâ—l Cajet Richard Durand Pantus c. as coming too near the Massilienses Yea and all that hold that facienti quod in se est ex viribus naturae Deus non denegat gratiam and abundance of other Protestants written much of Preparation to Conversion And is it not our common Doctrine C. Yes but what 's that to Merit of Congruity B. What do you think they mean by it more than you by Preparation C. They mean such Merit as it is decent for God to reward B. The greater part I think by far of the School-men say That the first special Grace is not given upon any Merit at all And the learned and sober that thus talk of Merit of Congruity and Decency mean no more but this 1. That God who commandeth men such use of his common Grace as a means to special doth command no Duty and appoint no means in vain 2. That such prepared persons are fitter for special Grace than the unprepared and malignant Enemies of it 3. That it is Gods usual way to prepare men by common Grace before he give them special Grace 4. And many say that we cannot prove that God useth to deny special Grace where he giveth the highest degree of preparing common Grace And which of these are you against C. But doth not God give special Grace also without such preparation B. 1. Our foresaid practical Protestants seem to think not to men at age For they oft say that it cannot be conceived that a man can value Grace and come to Christ truly that hath no preparatory sense of sin and misery 2. But I find not that the Papists usually deny it but that God may give special Grace to the unprepared on a sudden 3. But Papist's and Protestants are agreed that this is not his ordinary way And where do we differ in all this C. But we say not that there is any Merit in all this B. Phy on that word Merit I thought it was but the name that we differed about 1. And many of themselves dislike the name and say It is unapt And I think so do the Lutherans and Arminians more commonly 2. And others say that by Morit they mean nothing but a moral aptitude for Reward And they say that they can find no one fitter name for that than this which all Christians without known opposition used for many hundred years after the Apostles And that the Scripture word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy is the same in sence 3. And they usually say that special Grace is called a Reward to the prepared if not unaptly as many or most say yet but in a lower Analogical sense and not as Heaven is the reward of Holiness Because of the latter there is a flat Promise and premiant Law or Covenant made by God but of the former they can say no more than as aforesaid that God appointeth no Duty and means in vain The eighth Crimination C. They make many Elections or Decrees where God maketh but one * These are but contentions de nomine as Vasquez truly saith about Durandus Opinion who 1. d. 41. q 2. n. 11. concurring with other School-men that the question de causa praedestinationis is meant only ex parte effectus de toto effectu an scilicet totius effectus detur aliqua causa opposeth Ockam Gabr. therein on the supposition that glorification is no effect of Predestination but the means to it And that because Predestination is as prudence in a man which is only circa media which saith Vasqueâ— dis 91. c. 4. non tam rei quam vocis quaestio est So also Bonaventure and Jave differ from others and say that Praedestinationis quoad effectum datur meritum congruum ex auxiliâ— gratiae But it s a meer strife about a word while they take Predestination as reaching only to Justification Perseverance and Glorification and others take it as extending also to preparatory Grace as Vasqu also noteth disp 91. cap. 5. As an Election to Glory and another to Justification and another to Faith and Conversion and another to have the Gospel and another to be redeemed by a sufficient satisfaction of Christ and another to be made men And so vary the Objects B.
the command be in vain but whether the duty commanded be in vain And how doth one mans good use of common Grace prepare another man for conversion and not himself It is for himself that God commandeth and earnestly exhorteth men to be reconciled unto God And is this in vain to themselves if they do it If they repent when commanded it is not in vain If they use common Grace in seeking God how prove you that it shall be in vain If you say to your Servants Come and ask me for your Food and Raiment when you want them they would think that Command did not set them upon a vain asking If an able Physician that could cure a Disease at his pleasure should say Take this Medicine for the cure of your Disease or this preparative it would be supposed not in vain In this Command God is both Rector and Benefactor As Rector the right government of mankind is his end which is not done by setting them on vain duty As Benefactor the good of his Creature is his end as we may call it under his Glory therein And vain duty is an evil and not a benefit to any If the King sent to you to come and ask him for He that readeth the Doctrine of the greater part of the Papists of supernaturality â—and infusion of Charity or Grace will have little reason to say that they bring them too much into the power of man â—especially the Dominicans Doth not Alvarez set Grace far enough out of mans power when he saith li. 7. disp 69. p. 306. c. 1. Impossibile est quod Gratia habitualis sit connaturalis alicui substantiae creatae vel creabili Ergo etiam est impossibile quod Charitas vel ejus actus sit ei connaturalis aut ex solis viribus naturae procedens Prob. antecedens Quia contra rationem Gratiae est quod sit debita naturae ex â—o enim gratia dicitur quia gratis datur non ex debito And is not a mans Being and Nature given him gratis non ex debitâ— Indeed had he defined Grace to be quod datur contra meritum the contradiction in the terms would have allowed this game at words to be true But words it is and to no purpose or else I cannot excuse it from blasphemy to say that God is not able to make an Angel or any Creature in whom the habits of Grace or Love shall be connatural Protestants hold on the contrary that some degree of habitual Love was connatural to Adam and the Angels though not as essential to their Natures and so unlosable And that Love is now called supernatural because medicinal supernatural Grace must restore it to corrupted Nature Rada the Scotist Cont. 1. speaks better of supernaturality For my part that which I fear in these high strains of supernaturality in these Papists Doctrine and Sir Henry Vanâ—'s is â—est it should produce Infidelity and Saduceâ—sm And he that to day holdeth that the Love to God is so exceeding far supernatural to perfect Nature it self may to morrow hold that mans Species is changed by Grace And the next day that it is more credible that mans Nature was never made to love God or to be glorified than to believe that God will either make him of another Species or give him another Nature besides the perfecting of the Nature created Yea that God cannot make a Creature that shall naturally love his Maker preferment you would take it to signifie half a promise Now Gods Promises are not strictly Obligations any further than the notification of his Will and giving the subject a right is an Obligation where Gods Perfection is instead of an Obligation And is such a Command Ask Seek Accept no notification of his Will that our labour shall not be lost I do not call it a Promise But is it not a signification that God the Rector and Benefactor of the World will not let the performer lose his labour C. He loseth not his labour if he get by it but temporal mercies and an abatement of his pains in Hell B. Do you thus paraphrase Gods Command Seek for Grace and thou shalt have Health or Riches or seek for Conversion and Salvation and thou shalt have an easier Damnation This is still a duty that 's vain as to the commanded End C. I confess it were not in vain if they could do it as he commandeth for God commandeth them to do it in faith and spiritual sincerity which they cannot do B. Do you thus paraphrase the Command Seek Faith in Faith and seek Sincerity in Sincerity that is You that have not Faith and Sincerity if you have them already seek that you may have them Did not you confess that they that have not special Grace are bound to seek it in the use of certain means C. They are bound to do it but they are not able B. Did not you confess that they were able by common Grace to do the works of common Grace and that in abundance of instances What is common Grace for if they can do nothing by it C. It is equal to nothing for it is not acceptable to God B. Did not you confess that it is a preparation to special Grace and may bring them nearer to the Kingdom of God C. But without Faith it is impossible to please God B. But there are several sorts of Faith and several degrees of pleasing God We grant that without special Faith it is impossible so to please God as to have Justification Adoption or any Title to Heaven as the members of Christ have But by a common Faith men come to be less displeasing to God than grosser Infidels and Rebels and are more prepared for converting Grace You know that this is the common Doctrine both of our practical and polemical Divines as you may see in their Books and the Synod of Dort C. But our Divines against the Arminians oft say That a man that hath but nature and common Grace cannot use them well B. I am resolved not to be cheated by ambiguous words To use them well signifieth 1. To use them in love to God as the Ultimate End and so none but the godly use any thing And do not all the Arminians grant you that 2. Or it is to use them so much better than worser men as that they draw nearer God and are more prepared for special Grace And do not all our Divines grant that they may so far use them well where then is the difference C. The prayer of the Wicked is abomination to the Lord. B. By wicked is meant either one that is yet unregenerate as such or one that is actually set upon wickedness progressively and is not about returning to God And by abomination is meant either that which God accepteth not so far as to pardon and save him that doth it though he judge him more prepared for Grace than others or else that which he totally abhorreth as being no
stir up their distast of others B. The question may have three several senses of passiveness as man is considered 1. In his Nature 2. In his Action And therein 1. In the reception of the Divine Influx 2. In the acting thereupon And so the questions are 1. VVhether mans Soul be an active nature or passive matter only 2. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in the reception of the Divine Influx ad agendum 3. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in its own first act of Faith or Repentance Tell me Are not these three distinct questions And are they not all that you can devise unless you will make another whether we are merly passive in the preparatory part And are you not now ashamed to confess that you need any answer to any one of these three questions I. All the world is agreed save the Hobbists and Somatists and Sadduces that mans Soul is not meer passive nature but is an active nature inclined to Action as passive Elements are to non-action And that when God moveth it he moveth not Earth Water or Air but a Spirit whose nature is self-moving as fire under the first mover II. All the world is agreed that the Soul and all Spirits are not so purely and meerly active as God is but are partly and first passive and that they do and needs must be receptive of the Divine Influx before they can act For all Creatures depend on the first Cause and both Being Nature and Action would cease if Gods emanation to it ceased And all the world agreeth that no man before Conversion or after doth any act of Faith Love c. no nor eating and drinking and going c. but he is in the first instant passive as influenced by God before he is active Who ever doubted whether physice recipere be pati Did you ever know such a man III. All the world is agreed that man is not meerly passive when he acteth An Act is an Act sure And to believe repent and love is an Act and an act of mans Soul And Scotus who thinketh that immanent Act are qualities as we think of habits yet thinketh that the Soul is truly active antecedently to that quality Where now is there any room for a Controversie C. You would make me believe that we are very ignorant Wranglers that make a noise in our dream and will not suffer others to rest Do not the Arminians say that man concurreth with God to the first act of his own Faith yea that he maketh Gods Grace effectual B. You shall not again tempt me to anticipate the question of effectual Grace though enough is said before to it as far as this Objection is concerned in it Gods Influx on the Soul is one thing mans natural faculty receiving that Influx passively is another And mans Act is another To thrust in here a general word man concurreth and so to run away from clear and necessary distinction is not the part of a man of knowledge Did ever man yet deny that man herein concurreth as aforesaid 1. Man concurreth not to make his Soul nor to continue it in being or power 2. Man concurreth not as any efficient of Gods Influx on his Soul ad agendum 3. But man receptively or passively concurreth as a Receiver of that Influx 4. And man actively thereupon concurreth to believe and repent Is not all this true But you would tempt the Arminians to say that it is you and not they that are herein to be accused For what mean you else by confining the Controversie to the first act of Faith or to our first Conversion Would you make men believe that a converted man is not as truly passive in believing loving God c. as the unconverted is Must not the holiest person be passive in receiving the Divine Influx on his Soul before he do any holy Act You seem to deny this and then you are the person that err by ascribing too much to man If not shew the difference C. There is a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act And it is in respect to that habit that the Arminians say we are active procurers of it which we deny But the godly operate from a habit B. You speak a private Opinion of your own brain against the sense of the Concordant Churches Where doth Scripture say that a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act Mr. Pemble * Vind. Gratâ— saith so indeed yet he sometime calleth that but a Seed which at other times he calleth a habit Dr. Ames in his Medulla contradicteth it Bishop Downame * In the end of his Treatise Of Perseverance Le Blank de diss Grat. 2. Thes 22. speaking of our being passive as to operating Grace saith truly Non videntur hac in parte Reformati a sanioribus inter Scholasticos dissentire licet aliis verbis mentem suam exprimant The School-men and Protestants little differ in the method of operations of Grace and all are drawn by Controversies too near curiosity beyond their reach hath written a large Confutation of Mr. Pemble The generality of Protestant Divines contradict it and thus with Rollock de Vocat distinguish Vocation from Sanctification that they suppose Vocation to cause the first act of Faith and Repentance and Sanctification to give us the fixed habit the act intervening Mr. Tho. Hooker is large upon it in his Souls Vocation Will you start one mans Opinion which Calvinists and Arminians are against and feign this to be a difference between Calvinists and Arminians And perhaps Mr. Pemble himself by his first semen or habit meaneth no more than the Divine Influx ad actum received I have before told you how unsearchable the nature of that Influx is and how hard it is to know the true nature of an Habit. C. But Mr. Pemble saith It is the Spirit that is given before we believe B. Away with Ambiguity By the Spirit is meant either the meer received Influx of the Spirit ad agendum and so it is granted Bad men receive the Spirits Influx to such acts as he moveth them to Or else you mean the foresaid fixed Habits and Dispositions to a ready and facile ordinary Operation Or else you mean the Spirit given relatively by Covenant undertaking to be the Sanctifier and Preserver of the Soul In both these latter senses the Spirit is not given before the first act of Faith to Infidels They have not the fixed habits of Holiness Love Hope Obedience c. Otherwise they were holy Infidels No Scripture speaketh it nay contrarily it promiseth the Spirit as to Believers and affirmeth it given after Faith Eph. 1. 13. Joh. 14. 17. 15. 26. Gal. 3. 14. 4. 6. Joh. 7. 39. And that the Holy Ghost is not given in Covenant to Infidels I need not prove to them that will not baptize Infidels The sixth Crimination C. They hold that none are damned only for Adam's sin imputed * Yes Vasqu and other
Grat. Univers p. 113. saith Sed non quemadmodum Pomificii alii qui eorum sententiam vel sequuntur vel interpolant nobis imponunt ita ut plane negemus sufficientis Gratiae phrasin posse usurpari aut dicamus nullam esse sufficientem ullo modo quae efficax non sit vel nullam esse efficacem quae ad conversionem salutem non sit efficax Id tantum dicimus non dari omnibus talem Gratiam sufficientem quae ita moveat omnium hominum voluntates ut sit in potestate electionis motioni aut obtemperare aut resâ—agari adeoque nullum esse qui per talem gratiam non possit ad salutem pervenire Deumque id velle omnibus intendere You see that he will own no more but the denial of a universal sufficient Grace for Salvation intended of God to all men And you your selves confess 1. That God intendeth not Salvation for all men unless conditionally if they believe and repent which from eternity he knew before he made them that they would not 2. And that all men have not sufficient Grace to Salvation no nor to believe but only to make them better and bring them nearer it and prepare them for it which some call Grace mediately sufficient to Salvation but that 's an improper Speech as long as for want of their Obedience they never attain to much that is absolutely necessary For my part I doubt not to assert 1. That no man in the World hath Grace sufficient for Salvation that is Glorification an hour before he dieth For he cannot be saved without more that is without the Grace of perseverance to the end But every believing Penitent hath Grace sufficient and effectual to give him a present Right to Salvation And 2. I add that there is no such thing as Grace sufficient to Salvation which is not effectual and doth not save Seeing all that persevere in holiness are saved and they that do not have not Grace sufficient that is necessary to Salvation 3. And I add that no man hath Grace sufficient to give him a Right to Christ and Pardon and Salvation which is not effectual and doth not procure it For every penitent true Believer hath that Right to Christ Pardon and Life And he that is not a penitent Believer hath not Grace sufficient to obtain that Right A. Yes if he have sufficient to help him to believe B. Not so unless he actually believe For is not Faith in act somewhat more than power to believe When you confess that men are damned that have the Power but not that have the Act. A. Yes but man causeth the Act oft when God hath given only the Power and necessary concurse to the production of the Act. B. Corvinus and others of you ordinarily confess that Faith it self is the Gift of God and that Faith is more than a power to believe And we denominate Gods Grace by the various effects Therefore I may say that a man that hath Grace sufficient to believe yet hath not Grace sufficient to Justification till he have 1. The Grace of Faith 2. And so the Grace of the moral donation of the Covenant which is the justifying pardoning Instrument A. You seem then to deny sufficient Grace your self B. I assert 1. That godly men have power or sufficient Grace to many acts of Faith Love and Duty which they never do 2. And that all men by common Grace or sufficient are able to do better than they do in preparation for special Grace 3. And that they are bound so to do in order to their Salvation And so that all men have some helps and Grace in its kind sufficient to enable them to seek Salvation and that God will not forsake them till they forsake him * But I am not able to prove what Vasqu asserteth in 1. Tho. q. 23. disp 98. c. 4. Nunquam occurrere nobis obligationem praecepti aut tentationem sine sufficienti cogitatione qua hanc vincere illud observare possimus Loquor de praeceptâ— affirmativâ— cui non solum tempuâ— adest quo solet obligare sed etiam cujus obligatio memoriae occurrit And he addeth a great untruth Nam si nulla illius in mentem subiret cogitatio nulla nobis ejus obligatio inâ—umberet unless by sufficient Grace he meant meer natural power and by cogitation the natural power of cogitation this is odious As if a man were bound by no. Law of God or Man if he could but make himself ignorant contemptuous and wicked enough never so much as to think of iâ— A. But doth not your Church of England Art 13. say Works done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God forasmuch as they spring noâ— of Faith in Jesu Christ neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or as the School Authors say deserve Grace of congruity yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done we doubt not but they have the nature of sin B. This Article is intended against merit of congruity in the works of wicked men And it is certain that all their works are sin in that they are in defectiveness of ends and manner and in perverseness the violations of the Law of God as to pray to God only to be saved from Hell without love to God and Holiness or hatred of Sin to give Alms for the same ends c. where the love of God the true end is left out the action must needs be sin But we say not that it is only sin or totally sin It is good and pleasing to God secundum quid though not simpliciter And such Actions as are sin by deficiency may have a tendeney to better Actions and so to Salvation by that good that is in them He that in meer love to his own Soul will pray hear meditate avoid sin c. is in a likelier way to Grace and Life than he that will do none of this And 2. The Authors of the Artiâ—le by merit of congruity meant somewhat more than preparation for Conversion For no English Divines I think have denied that 3. And by Works done they meant such as the Papists taught men too much to trust in as giving Alms building Hospitals going on Pilgrimages c. which went under the notion of Sacrifices and Oblations under the old Law when God said He abhorâ—d the Sacrifice of the Wicked and bid them be readier to hear than to offer the Sacrifice of Fools But it is not I think Soul-humbling Repentance Confession begging for Grace considering their Ways hearing the Word c. though but such as preparatory Grace may do which they meant by Works 4. And that is not done without Grace and the Spirit of Christ which is done but by his common Grace And yet I could wish the Article had been better worded But if you will see the consent of an
before No man can deny but that God usually prepareth the Soul fer Conversion by a common sort of Grace And though he may do what he list with his own and extraordinarily may in an instant convert the most unprepared malignant obdurate person yet that is not his usual way And some that think otherwise are led into the mistake by thinking that a man is converted when he hath suddenly some terrifying humbling preparation which endeth in conversion Whether he convert all that are brought to the very highest and nearest degree of preparation I know not nor perhaps you neither But that usually he converteth all such we have very great reason to think probable And that he hath not commanded men to seek his special Grace in vain So that whether it be a proper promise on Gods part or only an encouragement short of proper promise I told you before is a hard question But we maintain that it is not that proper mutual Covenant which maketh a Christian and is celebrated in Baptism and giveth Salvation If one of old John Rogers's Thomas Hooker's or Robert Bolton's hearers when they were vehemently urging preparatory humiliation desire endeavour c. should have said to them Sir you play the Arminian and contradict St. Paul who saith that Grace is not given according to Ista â—â—â—dia nemini Deus destâ—â—â—â— propter vel secundum morita ipsius sed ex pura puta Gratia Nemini etiam denegat nisi juste propter gracedentia peecata Armin. Disp Privat Thes 41. Sect. 10. Adrian VI. Quodl 3. q. 1. fol. 21. expoundeth Habenti dabitur thus Qui habet verbi Dei amorem ut illuc mentis intuitum dirigat dabitur ei sensus intelligendi qui non habet verbi Dei amorem auferetur ab eo naturalis capacitas intelligend c Works Therefore God will give it me never the more for such preparations what would you have said to him The truth is practical Preachers in these practical cases are carried with full sail into that truth which Disputers would wrangle out of Doors But as for any workâ— meritorious in point of commutative Justice yâ—a or of any full and proper Covenant of God giving a proper Right to the Sinner upon which he may claim special Grace as his due I know of none such before true Conversion though Gods commands and general promises give men sufficient encouragement C. But what say you to Rom. 9. It is not in him that willeth or runneth c. B. I do not love to expound hard Texts unsatisfactorily by scraps I will give you God willing a Paraphrase of the Chapter together by it self I suppose you have read John Goodwin's and Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase At present it may suffice to say 1. That the meaning is not that he that would have Christ and Grace and Holiness is no fitter for it than he that would not have them nor that he that seeketh them is no fitter for them than he that rejecteth themâ—nor that he that believeth is no fitter for Justification than â—n Iâ—fidel nor he that is holy any fitter for Heaven than the unholy nor yet that he that heareth meditateth prayeth aâ— he can and attaineth the highest degree of common Grace is no fitter or likelier for Faith or special Grace than he that despiseth it and the means of it 2. But the meaning is that God of his free mercy câ—lled the Gentiles that were further from him than the Jews and may give both the Gospel and the Grace of the Gospel to one and take it from or not give it to another when both of them are equally unworthy of it by their sin So that the first and principal cause that differenceâ—ha Jacob from an Esau is not that Jacob before Gods Grace did will and râ—n deâ—ire and seek Grace but that Mercy begun with him and gave him though as unworthy as Esau both commonner and special Grace which caused him to will and run And yet for all that both are supposed to have forfeited mercy by sinning against it and it is in him that willeth not and runneth not that the cause of his misery and privation of mercy is to be found Yea in many an instance where mercy and helps are given by an equality a wicked man may make himself to differ by his sin and wilfully become worse than others C. At least you must here confess that de facto we do really differ from each other in this point B. All they that hold all that Doctrine of Preparation for Conversion which you find in the suffrages of the British Divines in the Synod of Dort do not that I know of differ from many of the Lutherans and Jesuites nor from many of the Arminians herein while by the name of merit of Congruity used by some and Preparation by the other no more is meant than they there assert And as to the question of a promise or no promise I shew'd you before how small the difference is yea with some it is but de nomine while one calleth that a Promise which another calleth but a half promise with Mr. Cotton or a precept to use means with sufficient encouragement when perhaps in the description of the thing they agree So that among the most and sober practical Preachers I yet see no real difference in sense at all about the necessity of preparatory Grace The sixth Crimination C. For ought I can understand some of them acknowledge no Corruption nor Grace in the Will as having no Habits but meer Indifferency or Liberty but think that the illuminating of the understanding is enough to change the will * The Remonstrants say Synod circ art 3. 4 p. 15. Voluntatem iâ—super Deus in obsequium suum fle ctit ad actuâ— fidei obedientiâ— ita inclinat per spiritum suum sanctum verbo utentem ut voluntas per illam operationem non solum possit obedire â—ed obediat quoties obedit non ex se anâ— per se aut a se B. 1. These are a few odd persons that differ from the generality of your Adversaries and I am not to justifie all that every man writeth 2. But even of these I suppose the meaning of the most is but this that sin began inthe Intellect and there Grace must begin and that God worketh on the will but mediante Intellectu And these Camero held as well as they and so do many more And these seem to differ not about the necessity of Grace but the manner of its conveyance to the will whether it be only by the intellect 3. And as the wind bloweth where it listeth and we hear its sound but know not whence it cometh or whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit We know that the will is vitiated as ill as the understanding and needeth Grace as much as it and that God is as near to the one in his operations as to the
or degrees II. But if your question be of the Effect it is ridiculous or past question Do you ask what Grace in us it is that maketh the Difference between a Believer and an Infidel Why your question answereth it self It is Faith and that maketh the difference in one as Infidelity doth in the other Do you ask what is sufficient To what If to Salvation it is perseverance in Faith and Holiness If to Justification it is Faith if to Faith and Conversion nothing pre-existent in us Do you ask what maketh Grace effectual what Grace mean you If Faith it 's none of the doubt or Controversie It is improperly effectual to Justification being no efficient of it but a Condition which is a Receptive dispoâ—ition ex ordinatione divina virtute foederis You must recur then and ask what maketh Gods Essence or Spirit effectual As if Gods essence had a Cause or suffered from the Creature But if you mean no more but what are the Causes of Faith that 's another question oft answered Choose now whether you will lay all our Controversies on that fine thred of Gods various Impress on the faculties in order of Nature antecedent to Faith in act or true habit or else confess that we have no difference nor shew of any but have many ages abhominably abused the world C. But seeing you maintain that God as a free Lord and Benefactor doth vary his gifts of Grace as he doth of Nature though we know not when he doth it Morally and by means and when by Immediate differing Impress yet methinks you should hold that by one of the two he always doth it And that equal Grace hath never unequal effects by the unequal free reception rejection or other difference made by man B. To conclude this whole dispute 1. * By Grace here I mean not with Bradwardine Gods Will as denominated from various objects Gods Will in it self is but One and the Effects are many and the Will is variously denominated virtually ex connotatione terminorum vel effectuum If he could prove more diversity in Gods Will or that no man can do any thing but what he doth I should be of his mind That equal universal Grace can end in different effects in the same Man and in divers men by man's own free various concourse or neglect I have fully proved to you 2. And when we have proved that such a Grace there is and so it can do we have great reason to think that sometimes it doth so And no man can prove that it never doth so 3. And de facto I have proved that sometimes it doth so in Adam's case and in Cain's making a difference before God denyed him sufficient Grace And in all bad men and good men in the world who sometimes sinfully omit to do that which by the same Grace they could have done and did another time 4. But de facto How oft and when and in how many God converteth men by the one way or the other no Mortal man can tell And therefore forget not that when I call universal Grace ordinary and the special different Grace extraordinary I intend not to tell you which God most usually doth the work by as distinct from the other But I call one Ordinary because it is common to all or more in it self and also concurreth always with the other in its work and so is never left out And I call the other Extraordinary because it is above the universal degree and way and proper to some as superadded C. You did well to remember that For I was offended that you called that Different Grace Extraordinary B. I say again to conclude I will earnestly intreat you to take heed of these few errors in your foundation here that they mislead not your understanding in all the controversie I. Do not think that God must needs act ad ultimum posse in all his operations It 's certain that as to many possible effects he doth omnino non agere as to make more Suns more Men more Worlds And if he can therein totally not act he can act limitedly or in tantum only as he freely will II. Do not think these degrees of Operation as various ex parte Dei for they are but his most simple essence Nor do not Imagine that there is a certain Vis media called Grace which is somewhat Causal between the Creator and the Creature I doubt such a wrong conceit lyeth at the bottom of all these disputes and men think that besides Gods essence and the effects on the Soul there is some middle force or cause called Grace which is neither God nor a Creature whose kind and degree they enquire after * As Aureoluâ— maintaineth III. Do not overlook the Glory that God designeth to himself in his SAPIENTIAL Kingdom Government and operations I doubt some think so much of Strength and Power alone as if they thought God were Glorified by nothing else or more in an Oxe or Horse than in a Man And whatever is ascribed to Gods Sapiential operation they contemptuously call A Moral Causing and not a Physical As if God must move men as he doth the air the water or a stone Remember that though Gods Omnipotent Activity his Wisdom and his Will do still inseparably co-operate yet they have each its eminent Impress Effect and Glory And so the frame of Nature is the Glorious Impress of Omnipotency with Wisdom and Love The Kingdom of God on earth especially of Grace is the Glorious work of the Wisdom of God directly governing Man as a Moral agent by Moral means And the Kingdom of Glory as foretasted on Earth and perfect in Heaven is the glorious work of Divine Love Separate not these nor undervalue or dishonour any one of them But study the Glory of Gods Sapiential Kingdom and works And remember that Moral Means and Moral Operations of God are not unsuitable to the Government of Moral Agents in Moral works IV. Forget not the great difference between the way of operation suitable to such a Moral Rector as such and to a meer Proprietor or Actor and Benefactor And then you will see that standing Laws are the Rectors Instruments and Judgments and Executions equal according to those Laws And that Life Eternal and Gods Glory and pleasure being the ends of Government it cannot be doubted but Gods Laws to all the world have some aptitude and suitableness on their part to that end And therefore that the frame of Moral means and annexed help hath a certain universal equality antecedent to man's sinful will which by forfeiture and rejection maketh an inequality And therefore it is one of the noblest parts of your study here to find out what Acts God doth as Legislator for those are first and equal and as Judge which man maketh unequal and what he doth as Owner and free-Benefactor For so he may make what difference he pleases And the wonderful varieties through all the
received But they lay the certainty of our perseverance on Gods Decree and Promise Now say they God did not decree that it should be non-possibile but only that it should be non-futurum And so that he hath promised the non-futurity but not an impossibility of falling away 3. And yet they sometimes use the term impossible here But how 1. Say they There is a logical impossibilitas consequentiae And so there is on supposition of meer prescience and prediction For do but make this one of the premises God fore-knoweth that Paul will persevere and it is impossible this conclusion should be true Paul will not persevere But yet this may be nevertheless true It is possible for Paul to fall away But this impossibility of consequence in order of arguing is nothing to the impossibilitas rei in respect to the Causes 2. And also they say that there is impossibilitas hypothetica supposing that man willfully reject not Grace Gods Power it self is so engaged to defend him against Satan and all Enemies that it is impossible for them to overcome God and destroy him But here impossible is related to the power of Enemies only It is a thing that Satan hath not Power to do to conquer Grace 3. But when the question is of the Power of the Person himself they say It is unfit to say that he is unable to fall away or that it is impossible in respect to his own Power 1. Because that to fall away is an effect of Impotency and not of Power 2. Because God will not so operate by his Grace as to make a man unable to sin but unwilling and actually to keep him from it So that Grace doth not make us impotent to resist it and make it really impossible to us to fall away but maketh us able and willing to stand and causeth us freely de facto to persevere 3. And I must tell you that your Crimination is grounded on a lame and faulty recitation of their Opinion you name but half of it instead of the whole which is That the sanctified never fall away from the due fear and care and endeavour of persevering and consequently not from Sanctification or Justification And will you infer that a man needeth not fear care or live holily if certainly he shall do so A. Yes what need I take care of that which I shall certainly do B. That is what need you take care if you certainly shall take care A. What need I trouble my own head about that which God will do what-ever I do If he undertake to ascertain it I may leave it to him B. You talk contradictions God doth not undertake to secure your Salvation whether you will or not or care or not or labour or not But to cause you to will to care and labour And you say If God will make me willing I need not be willing If God will make me think of it and care and labour for it I need not think of it or care or labour for it The Sun need not shine if God will make it shine You need not eat if God decree that you shall eat Are not these weak Contradictions A. But as weak as you make it the Contradiction is their own For they first make God to make their falling away to be impossible or certainly non-futurum and yet say that he will make them fear it that is to perform an Act without the proper Object As if God decreed that they should fear Good as Good or love Evil as Evil No man can fear that which neither is nor is taken to be fearful An impossible or certainty non-future hurt is not fearful or an Object of fear unless to a mad man B. There were much weight in what you say but for that which you leave out 1. That objective certainty may be separated from subjective certainty that is men may be uncertain of that which is certain in it self 2. Yea few of the Godly have a strong assurance of their sincerity and Justification 3. And no man in this life hath a perfect assurance no more than other perfect Graces 4. And every mans faith it self in Gods Promises and fidelity is imperfect Therefore while all these are imperfect and not only so but liable to sad assaults and interruptions and decays 5. Yea and the person liable to such hainous sins as look terribly towards Apostacy you cannot say that fear is needless For though God decree the certainty of their perseverance that proveth not that they are perfectly certain of it A. But God will not found our Duty on our Sin nor command men to fear because through sinful weakness they do fear B. God will not make our Sin to be our Duty in sensu conjuncto 1. But God will make Duty on supposition that Sin maketh it necessary If you sin God will make sorrow and confession your Duty which would else be none 2. Yea more the same Act may be a Duty and a Sin in several respects And so may fear of Hell be A. Stay there Do you not then make God the Author of Sin For if he cause the Act as a Duty when it is caused it will prove a Sin too B. You mistake Two Causes may cause two Modes and Relations of the same Act and one not at all cause that which the other causeth God causeth every Act in genere act us which is sinful and yet causeth not the deficiency or exorbitancy of it As the Rider maketh the Horse go but not to go lamely God knowing our uncertainty of our own Election and Sincerity may make it our Duty by a wise and careful fear to avoid our own danger And yet that fear may not only come also from some ignorance and unbelief in our selves but have sinful degrees and so have that in it which God is not the cause of The second Crimination A. Their Doctrine tendeth to the indulgence of all sin * One would think that the Doctrine asserting the loss of Justification by mortal sin were stricter than the Calvinists But judge by the Jesuites Doctrine who teach that a man in mortal sin or unconverted may de congrâ—o merit Justification Ruiz de praedest exad d. 19. â—ect 4. p. 242. Ad meritum congrui non requiritur personam esse simpliciter Deo gratam quin potiâ—s propter peccatum mortale fit inimica Dei nihilâ—minus actus fidei alii qui ex side procedunt secundum se grati sunt quantum sufficit ut justificationem de congruo mereantur opera namque fraternae charitatis Heb. 13. miserccordiae sunt ut sacrificia quibus Deum per mortale peccatum amissum promeremur reconciliatum accipere 1 Joh. 1. si confiteamur c. So that Gods Justice is bound to be reconciled to and Justifie a wicked enemy for an Alms or for Confession Is not this an easie cure of enmity But the promise is made only câ—teris patibus to true Believers already
Justification Quest 2. Shew me how many of these six hundred Texts do not speak of such Inherent or Performed personal Righteousness as is distinct from such as you describe in your sense of Imputation Try whether one of twenty or forty or an hundred have such a sence Lib. Not if such false teachers as you must be the expositor of them P. Let us try some of them and be you the expositor 1 Joh. â— 29. every one which doth Righteousness is born of God 1 Joh. 3. 7 10. he That personal Righteousness is necessary that doth Righteousness is righteous Whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God Lib. You choose out those texts which countenance your own ends P. My question is but Whether Gods word talk of any Righteousness which consisteth in any thing that is in or of our selves Lib. Yes that cannot be denyed But not in order to our Justification P. Of the use we must speak â—non Quest 3. I next ask you then Wâ—â—â—ther all these texts be not True and whether we may not speak 〈…〉 Lib. Yes We question not the Truth but the meaning of the 〈…〉 P. Quest 4. Is this Righteousness aâ— such in that 〈…〉 have it abominable to God Doth not God command it and requireâ—â— to obey his Laws sincerely And doth he hate the obedience of his â—â—â—â— Is not Holiness his Nature and Image in us And doth he hate his Image and the Divine Nature Is it not the mark of a Malignant to be a Hater of Holiness yea of the Devil himself And can you think that God â—â—â—â— Hater of Holiness What I he that hath said Be holy for I am â—â—â—â— and Without Holiness none shall see God Lib. If you were not an unholy deociver you would not intimate by such questions as if I took God to be a Hater of Holiness P. Is it not Holiness which the Scripture and we mean by Inherent Righteousness Lib. But God hateth it not as Holiness but as mixt with sin P. Do you Believe and Love God sincerely and Love the Godly or not Lib. Better than such as you do or else wo to me P. And doth God Hate all your Faith and Love because it is mixt with sin If he do What difference between it and wickedness or between you and a wicked man God can but hate what they do and doth he so by all that you do also Why then may not your Neighbours imitate God and hate all that you do why may they not then deride and persecute you for that which is hateful to God For shame never more blame then your scorners or persecutors Lib. I do not say that God hateth my Faith Love Humility and patience as such but as mixt with sin Therefore properly it is sin that God hateth and not my Faith and Love it self P. And is all come to this What mean you then to rail at us that say the same We all say that God hateth our sin and the faulty imperfection of our holiness and obedience and what say you more Lib. But you say not that God hateth your Righteousness for the sin that cleaveth to it though not for it self as we do Your Goodness is like an Apple faln into the dirt or poysoned and you are for wiping it and keeping it but God and wise men abhor it for the filth and cast it away P. Then it seems you cast away all Love to God and man all faith all honesty and obedience chastity and temperance because sin cleaveth to it Lib. By casting it away I do not mean giving over to Love God and obey him and turning wickedly to the contrary but I mean that I count it dung in order to my Justification P. I perceive by Teaching me you are but Learning to speak your self I further ask you Doth not God Love the Faith Love Obedience and Holiness of his servants notwithstanding all their faults and imperfections Joh. 16. 27. The Father himself loveth you because you have Loved me and believed c. 2 Cor. 9. 7. God loveth a cheerful giver Psal 11. 7. The righteous Lord Loveth righteousness with many the like passages Doth he not Love his Image Lib. That is because we are in Christ and our persons and graces and duties are accepted all in him being perfumed with his righteousness and all our sins and imperfections pardoned and covered thereby And as our Graces are the works of the holy Ghost and not primarily as ours P. Are you come so far already All this is held not only by us but by the Papists also You confess then that for the merits of Christs Righteousness our sins are pardoned and not only our persons but our faith Love and obedience accepted and loved though culpably imperfect and mixt with sin And so all your noise is come to nothing and you say as we II. But having found that we must have Inherent Righteousness let us Of Reward and Worâ—thiness or Merit next consider What use we may make of it and how far it may and must be valued and trusted to And Quest 1. Tell me whether God hath made any promise of a Reward to it or not Turn to the word Reward in your Concordance if you remember not the Texts and see Lib. Your Legal principles and spirits makes the Scripture a snare and a stumbling block to you as Christ himself is When God talketh of Reward metaphorically you take it properly as if we could merit any thing of God P. I only ask you Whether God hath promised us a Reward Lib. Yes But it is a Reward properly to Christ by whose grace we live and not to our selves P. When Christ saith Great is your Reward in Heaven and your father shall reward you openly Matth. 5. 12. 6. 4 6. and you shall not lose your reward and Heb. 11. 26. he had an eye to the recompence of reward and Heb. 11. 6. God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him c. is the meaning Great is Christs Reward in Heaven and God will reward Christ openly and is a Rewarder of Christ only as diligently seeking him c. Lib. You would make me ridiculous I mean that it is for Christs Merits or Righteousness which he did himself and not for any thing in us or done by us that we are rewarded P. Say you so Doth diligent seeking him Heb. 11. 6. and praying and giving alms in secret Matth. 6. 1 2 3 4. and suffering for Christ Matth. 5. 11 12. and feeding visiting c. Christ in his members Matth. 25. c. mean only that which Christ did and not we Is it Christs prayers and almes and charity and sufferings that the text meaneth Look over many such texts and judge Lib. Still you would make my words contemptible It is our duties that are rewarded but it is not for themselves or any worth that is in them but for the merits of Christ only P. If God have no respect
Righteousness is it but Christs that is said to be imputed to us P. It is none but what we have from Christ But the phrase of Imputing supposeth it ours And the meaning is no more but that we are reputed Righteous And the causes are not included in the phrase of Imputing righteousness to us but in the words before and after As Imputing sin to us and not Imputing it is but to Repute reckon or judge us sinners or by sin guilty of punishment or not guilty so is it here So that it is supposed 1. That Righteousness that is This Relation of being Righteous is the thing imputed 2. Christs Righteousness is the meritorious cause 3. The Gospel Donation is the instrumental Cause 4. Our Faith in Christ is the condition and as such the subordinate matter necessary on our parts And that faith is imputed for Righteousness plainly meaneth but this that Christ having merited and satisfied for us all that is now required on our part to denominate or primarily constitute us Righteous is to be true Believers in him or true Christians And I further ask you Do you thus paraphrase the words Faith that is Christs Righteousness is imputed to us for righteousness Lib. Yes I do so because the act is put for the object P. Were it so said but once and otherwise oft you had some colour for this But when it is never said Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and so oft said Faith is imputed for righteousness how shall ever the Scripture be understood at this rate if still by faith it mean not faith at all but Christs righteousness And why must not all other places that mention faith be so understood also But read the Texts and set all together and see what sense thus will be made of it Rom. 4. 3. What saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it that is not his believing but Christs Righteousness was Imputed to him for righteousness Is this a sober and modest paraphrase or a shameless violence Doth not it refer to believing God before mentioned Vers 4 5. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned or imputed of Grace but of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith that is not his faith but Christs righteousness is counted for righteousness Is this a modest Exposition Vers 10 11. We say that Faith that is not faith but Christs righteousness was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness How then was it that is not his faith but Christs righteousness reckoned In uncircumcision And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the fiath that is not of the faith but of the righteousness of Christs righteousness which he had being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them that believe that righteousness that is Christs might be imputed to them also who walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had c. doth faith here also signifie no faith Vers 13. When the promise is said to be through the righteousness of faith and Vers 14. faith made void is it no faith that is here also meant by faith And Vers 16. It is of faith to that seed which is of the faith of Abraham is not faith indeed here meant by the word faith So Vers 18 19 20 21. Who against hope believed And being not weak in faith he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith And being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able to perform is it no faith that is meant in all these words yea or no act of faith but accepting the righteousness of Christ So next Vers 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness that is Not his faith but by It is meant only Christs Righteousness though it was faith that was over and over mentioned as the antecedent So Vers 23 24. It was not written for his sake only that it that is not faith but Christs righteousness was imputed to him But for us also to whom it that is not faith shall be imputed if we believe is not that faith neither on him that is God the Father that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead which is a distinct act from Consenting to have his righteousness who was delivered to death for our offences and was raised again for our Justification Is the meaning that we are justified by the Imputation of Christs Resurrection so to us as that in Law sense we rose again in him and by Rising fulfilled the Law of Innocency I will not for shame and weariness thus go over other such Texts but I must be so faithful as to say that if good men and wise men and men that cry down the Papists and others for adding to Gods Word and corrupting it and calling it a Nose of Wax and introducing new Articles of faith will yet own such Expositions as these and accuse those that own them not they are as great Instances as most I remember except the defenders of Transubstantiation how far education or custom or humane dependance or faction and partiality and prejudice may blind the reason of professed Christians and godly men And that man that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justification and life upon such expositions of Gods Word should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others and reproving them that build upon the sand Lib. You have made a long discourse to make us odious upon a false supposition We do not say that in all or any of those Texts by faith is not meant faith but only that it is not faith as faith or as an act of ours but as connoting its object the Righteousness of Christ P. 1. Alas a great number of better men than you have too oft and plainly said without distinction that Faith is not imputed to us for righteousness I hope they meant better than they spake but I would it could be hid from the world that these words are not only in the Independents Savoy Confession but even in the Confession of the Westminster Assembly cap. 11. Not by imputing faith it self the act of believing or any other Evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them So also in the larger Catechism Not as if the Grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification How well soever they may mean Gods oft repeated Word should rather have been expounded than denyed 2. But what mean your cloudy words It is not faith as faith but as connoting the object They that cannot speak clearly seldom clearly understand what to speak The Question is Whether it be really and properly Faith that is meant in all these Texts or whether it be only Christs righteousness If you say that It is both in several respects you grant then that it is saith it self in one respect that is
being superstitious by a great deal of self-made Duty and Sin only theirs and yours are not in the same things They say Touch not taste not handle not some things and you other things while you say that God hath forbidden forms of prayer and many lawful circumstances of Worship and other such like And I now intreat you and all the servants of Christ soberly to consider whether a wild injudicious calling sound Doctrine and Practices Antichristian and using that name as a bugbear for want of solid argument and an injudicious running from Papists into the contrary errors and extreams hath not brought on many the guilt and misery which in all the following particulars I shall open to you 1. Such men have corrupted the Gospel of Christ by bringing in many doctrinal errors and opening a door to the heretical to bring in more Almost all the Libertine Antinomian errors have come in by an injudicious opposition to Popery as if they were the Vindication of Election Free Grace Christs Righteousness Justification by faith Perseverance against mans Works and Merits And it is not to be denyed that the said Libertine Doctrines do more contradict the Doctrine of the Gospel even Christianity it self than the Doctrine of the Papists about the same subjects do I know this to be true who ever is offended at it Aquinas Scotus Gabriel Bellarmine Pererids Tolet yea Vasquez Suarez and Molina are not near so erroneous about Justification Grace Faith and good works as Richardson Randal Sympson Towne Crispe Saltmarsh and many such others are Yet how many Religious people have I known that have gloried in these errors as the sweet discoveries of free grace 2. Such erroneous extreams in opposition to Popery have greatly dishonoured the Reformers and Reformation When it cannot be denyed but such and such errors are found among them it maketh all the Reformation suspected as Illyricus his Doctrine of the substantiality of sin and the non-necessity of Good works to salvation and as Andr. Osianders Doctrine of Justification by Gods essential righteousness did and as many harsh passages in Piscator and Maccovins do to name no more besides those before named What a stir have our later Divines still with the Papists in defending some few harsh sayings of Luther Calvin and Beza about the Cause of sin and some such subjects But downright errors cannot be defended 3. Your injudicious opposition greatly hardneth the Papists and hindereth their conviction When they find some errours in your writings as that all are bound to believe that they are elected and Justified that this is the sense of the Article I believe the forgiveness of sin that this is sides divina that we are Reputed of God to have fulfilled all the Law of Innocency habitually and actually in and by Christ c. and then when they read that such men lay the great stress of the Reformation upon these as the very cause of our rejecting Rome and the artiouli stantisaut cadentis Ecclesiae what can more harden them to a confidence that we are hereticks and that they are in the right As I have known the persons that had been in danger of turning Papists if the errour of Transubstantiation and some few more had not been so palpable as to resolve them These men cannot be in the right even so many Papists were like to have turned Protestants had they not met with some notorious errours in such injudicious adversaries 4. Yea we too very well know that your extremities have occasioned divers Protestants to turn Papists Yea some Learned men and such as have zealously run through many Sects in opposition to Popery themselves And some of my acquaintance that went as far in the profession of Godliness as most that I have known They have been so confounded to find partly palpable errours taken for sound doctrine and sound doctrine railed at as Popery and partly to see the shameful diversity and contentions of all the Sects among themselves that it hath drawn them to think that there is no prosperity of the Church and Godliness to be expected but where there is unity and Concord and no Unity and Concord to be hoped for among Protestants And therefore they must return for it to Rome And Grotius professeth that it was this that moved him to go so far towards them as he did And I must needs say that I believe from my very heart that the shameful divisions contentions backbitings revilings censurings persecutions errours and scandals of Protestants among themselves is a far stronger temptation to turn men to Popery than any thing that is to be found among the Papists to turn men to it and that many are thus driven to it that would not have been drawn 5. And by calling good and lawful if not necessary things Antichristian and Popish you have made Religious people ridiculous and a scorn to many that have more wit than Conscience as if we were all such humorous Novices as would run mad by being frightned with the name of Antichrist And as they deride you for it as Fanatical so they the less fear Popery it self 6. And by these extremities you corrupt the peoples minds with a wrathful and contentious kind of Religion which â—s easily taken up in comparison of a holy and heavenly mind When you should kindle in them a zeal for Love and Good Works the mark of Gods peculiar people you are killing Love and kindling wrath Gunpowder may be set on fire without so much blowing of the coal Long experience assureth us that a siding angry contentious zeal is easily kindled but a lively faith a confirmed hope of Glory a Love to God and man needs more ado S. Stay a little in the midst of your reproofs Would you perswade us to a Union with Antichrist and to live in Love and Concord with the members of the Devil Are not the Papists such Have you no way to reconcile us to Rome but by pleading for Love and peace Must we not contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints and not be Lukewarm to the doctrines of Jezabel that seduceth the people of God to Idolatry P. 1. Were you perswadable I would perswade you not ignorantly to contradict the truth of God and call it Popery nor to set up certain false or incongruous notions and pretend them great and necessary verities nor to make a stir for some odd unsound opinions received upon trust from those that you thought best of and to buzz abroad suspicious of Popery against those that have more understanding and conscience than to imitate you nor to fly in the faces of Gods faithfullest servants much less to use your tongues to backbite them as if they were Antichristian because they are not as shamefully ignorant and deceived as you are And I would perswade you to study and digest well what you take the boldness to speak against and not to talk confidently and furiously against that which you never