in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
a principal efficient Mr. Baxter is I am sure as zealous as I can be to assert a conditionate Covenant and if an adversary be as streight-laced to him and me in that as he is to me in this he will hardly prove a condition either in the Covenant of works or grace I will as soon find the word instrument in Scripture applyed to justification as he shall find the word condition applyed to either Covenant And he can name I think no word implying a condition that is alwayes put for a condition and the context wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith or that Christ is a propitiation through faith is in all indifferent Readers eyes as clear for an instrument in justification as those which he and I can bring which yet are clear enough for a conditionate Covenant And that doctrine hath farre more adversaries then this though there is little cause that any man should be an adversary in either He sayes the same answer serves to Act. 15.9 and then the same reply may serve There followes To what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An adjutor or concause is ill called an instrument must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is by the Spirit as if by signified onely an instrument Mr. Baxters head was doubtlesse on somewhat else either when he read these passage of mine or when he framed his answer I never had it in my thoughts that justification is expressely spoken to in any of these texts nor was it my businesse to find out any instrument in them though I doubt not but that faith is spoken to instrument in two of them and as a condition non-instrumental in none of them neither did I dream of making the Spirit an instrument All that I intended was to prove The acts of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture that the acts of man were intitled to God and so the acts of God to man not considering as the businesse in hand let not to it about what these acts are exercised if they prove that It is to me sufficient whether it be in Justification Sanctification Mortification or any other work There is added 2. All this is nothing to the businesse of justification nothing directly immediately but much by way of Analogy It is enough to prove That to be the instrument of man and the instrument of God are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if he desire a proof more punctually applyed to justification let him consult Rom 3.30 It is one God that shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith and Gal. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith Faith for justification is usually ascribed to man being properly his act and therefore that text of the Prophet Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith is by the Apostle more then once applyed to justification And in the text now quoted this act of faith is ascribed to God for that work I explained my self man neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both c. To this is answered If man justifie not himself and yet faith be his instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick Mr. Baxter is the first great Logitian that I ever heard talk so much of his Logick in the last Section but one we had it and now we have it in the same thing again there I shewed that old Logick may stand and yet his consequence not yeelded 2. It is said If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progresse and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology And if man may be said to sanctifie himself further then hath been said or so as to be a principal efficient which will follow from Mr. Baxters reasonings then welcome the newest Divinity It will not be denyed that a sanctified man differs from one that is unsanctified and then in case it may be allowed to say I sanctifie my self he may say I make my self to differ which I never heard that any in direct termes would say against the Apostle but Grevenchovius as I find him cited by Dr. Featly and yet it seems it is my great error that I will not say so I lift man up in that height in justification as to pardon his own sin in holding that it is of faith that it may be of grace not of works lest any should boast And I raise him not high enough in sanctification If I say no more then that by faith he receives power from God by the Spirit for it that text 1 Pet. 1.22 would farre better have served my purpose if I had first hit upon it The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in sanctification Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit They that have done any thing in purifying their hearts through the Spirit will rather entitle the Spirit of God then themselves to it and will judge that he rather then they should be denominated a sanctifier And for other texts that are hinted and one mentioned 2 Cor. 7.1 To argue from the Command to the power is that old Theologie that I am ready to bid farewell to As God requires it so he doth often undertake it and declares that it is his work to do it Ezek. 36.25 26. Deut. 30.6 I think few will say that they make their own hearts new There is added 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon This is for me therefore I am contented it should be said over again and my faith is the instrument wherewith I close with God In case it be the instrument wherewith I receive Christ as Mr. Baxter hath sometimes yeelded There followes 4. When you say that faith as an instrument receiveth righteousnesse to justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration and after some enquiry into their meaning There is added but these things must be more accurately considered I think Here it is confessed that I tread in the beaten road and that I do appear in the common cause and comparing what is here said with that which in his conclusion he delivers The Author is confest to appear in the common cause in behalf of Protestants It appears that the Divines of this corner of the world for 1300. years past have all taken this way which is all that go under the name Protestant whether Calvinist or Lutheran as they are wont to be distinguished I shall therefore expect that some of those that by grace have obtained to be as of the first three among Davids worthies will step in with their Auxiliary helps in case the
the mercy-seat durst not lift up his eyes to heaven seeing a large list of sins and not of vertues or praise-worthy carriages goes away justified rather then the Pharisee Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified not yet actually justified which also was their case Acts 2.37 with the Jaylours Act. 16.30 which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith who according to Scripture are actually justified and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it There followes I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification he saith Faith justifies that is Fides justificat i. e. disponit ad justitiam Respondeo Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus non disponendo ad justitiam Nec justificatio fit per motum sicut calefactâ—o sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâ—oprie fidei tribueretur Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa nec dispositio generat sed est via ad generationem Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat it disposes or fits for Justification and answers A wrested glosse unknown to Scripture and contrary to it For faith is said to justifie by receiving the gift of righteousnesse without works and not by disposing for righteousnesse Neither is Justification by motion as is warmth but by imputations And if it were by motion it were most improperly ascrib'd to faith Neither is motion to a thing the thing it self nor doth a disposition obtain any thing but is the way to obtain it Therefore faith do's not justifie by any motion of disposition Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is That this is onely donation or the will of the donour signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits the receiver is not the giver and therefore not the conveyer of right I wonder what this is a reason of if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned it is above me to see any reason in it It is further said Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is onely giving that effecteth this right But it effects no such right without receiving where it is given upon that proviso that it be thus and thus received After much ado and to what purpose let others judge The conclusion is The great thing therefore that I affirm is this that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousnesse yet doth it not justifie proxime formaliter as such but as the condition of the gift performed And the great thing that I would affirm is That the instrumental apprehending Christ or righteousnesse is this condition of the gift It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it and so the summe is That faith doth not justifie formaliter proxime as apprehending Christ or righteousnesse because it doth justifie proxime formaliter as thus apprehending Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture The eighth and last of his accurate heads followes In which he saies he opens his meaning together about this point though as he saies with some repetitions I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer which to the Reader would be too troublesome yet somewhat is observable that I find not before Faith saith he must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of right Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right then perfect obedience according to the old rule as Mr. Baxter calls it must first be perfect obedience in actual being before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works and so it will follow that that Covenant hath no condition seeing there is no such actual obedience A condition may be a condition though not made good though never made good The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philistine was slain and had stood as a condition though had never been given in If he mean that faith must be faith before the condition be made good this is false for the actual being of it is the making of it good and so it is as much as if I said I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi and conditio praestita when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita as though I should distinguish between Abrahams sacrificing of his son and his obedience of Gods command in sacrificing him when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition were somewhat but to say that we believe or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it Having led the Reader through all this accuratenesse I must further consider his animadversions I said The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit man cannot justifie himself by believing without God and God will not justifie an unbelieving man faith then is the act of man man believes yet the instrument of God that justifies onely believers To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scornes in place of answers 1. It is said The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification It is yet somewhat for illustration for which alone it was brought though nothing for proof for which it was never intended 2. It is said The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking and that is more then nothing What need he to have told me this when I had told it him before as the Reader may see in words which he omits I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it self Here is an exception to fill up the number If I move my pen to write before it move then I write something without my pen. 4. It is said It is not so easily proved as said That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith But why is not this disproved with ease I would know for my learning what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving soul is
so understood of a real change as wholly to exclude that which is relative It is meant of that whatsoever which tends to the soules profit It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest If Justification be for our profit or tend at all to our everlasting rest then justification is not here excluded It followes The Scripture meaneth The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie If I take this to be the meaning I must interpret it That the Word did not justifie them for it doth justifie where it is mixt with faith though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word It followes 2. It 's true that the Word did not justifie them but that is consequential onely of the former unprofitablenesse I might as well say that the Word 's not sanctifying is consequential as he may say the Word 's not justifying is onely thus consequential I see no shew of reason that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification and consequentially onely of Justification and if it be consequentially onely proved that the Word did not justifie Them here is a reall and more then a shew of advantage to my cause I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence when the consequence by himself is granted It followes Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions and then you do something When I go about the proof of it I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it he is not pleased to give us in any difference And he ownes that which is usually quoted out of Austin He that made thee without thee will not save thee without thee and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation as sanctification I desire him onely to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession a book newly come to my hands Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon and none have an absolute nor an actual right The Gospel findeth us equal and makes no inequality till we make it our selves But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference and make it in us before it be made by us Who ever went higher in speaking of mans work in his sanctification and higher it is then ever I spake of a mans pardoning himself It is said It is weak arguing to say the Word profiteth not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying you cannot but know the sequel would be denyed Others would think that there is strength in such arguing that it receives efficacy from faith upon that account that it profits where faith is and is unprofitable where faith is not especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification It followes In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the Word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification as in progressive sanctification tell us whether you will exclude I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel as instrumental workers But it followes not as is said that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this for concauses have not influence on each other but on the effect I scarce think that maxime to be of universal truth but be it a truth I say no more then here is asserted for me Justification is the effect and the Word and faith are concauses It yet followes The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul which presupposeth faith and that 's all that the Text saith If any sense can be made of this arguing so far as I understand it then Justification presupposeth not faith which is not Mr. Baxters judgment It followes May not the absence of faith hinder unlesse when present it doth effect And would the Apostle think we have spoke of effectual faith or the efficacy of faith yea would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith if it had been idle in the soul and without all efficacy And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification excluding Justification never came that I know into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer that hath treated of Justification neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way as to say we are justified by faith had faith been there and onely had sate idle The various applications of that Text Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith may teach us not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onely The Apostle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to support by faith in sufferings Heb. 10.38 and Gal. 3.11 to justification by faith and shall we say that in the one it is working and in the other it doth nothing If we do we shall have Paul our adversary who sayes that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith what followes hath been already spoken to The second Text saith he I know not how you mean to make use of unlesse you argue thus The Word worketh effectually onely in believers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you saith he that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent but if he can for disproof of that make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles I shall oppose him to maintain the Justification of Infidels The sequel in the word convey is his own and to that which followes I have already sufficiently spoken I inferred from the former words that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such This in very big terms is denyed and the opposite boldly asserted The Gospel saith he in it self considered without the co-ordinate or subordinate or superior causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it When I stand thus highly charged to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question by reason of the clear evidence of it every man may justly expect full clear and evident Scriptures and reasons beyond all doubt for my conviction but I hear of neither but instead
he saies He speaks not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but c. I think he ought to speak so of it when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification In his sense I suppose it can be no instrument of justification an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument but in this case justification is before-hand wrought and therefore according to the proverb it cannot do that which is done before it comes for the truth of this let Mr. Baxter speak The accepting Christ in this Covenant is true justifying faith if an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justfied pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed and so is indeed justified and the grant of the Covenant is an instrument for justification of a justified person I am demanded Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris vel legis as distinct from justificatio judicis vel per sententiam And I demand whether of these justifications do procede If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis then the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not In case it follow after then it is onely a manifestation or declaration of it of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter And this considered it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks ef the Covenant onely as eyed of God and not applyed to us and then indeed it is no instrument of God whereby he justifies but his rule according to which he justifies Pardon of sin is a relative change yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work and so are instruments of pardon dispositivè as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks as well as declarativè I added in my Treatise Forgivenesse of sin is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.38 but it is to those that believe that are justified faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it And here comes in my second charge mentioned I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification I answer Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists and according to Mr. Baxter farre more seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he sayes not onely of justifying faith but as justifying yet he is no Romanist 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romanists distinction of a first and second justification which first justification Protestants onely allow according to Scripture to be called justification and that there is according to them no ingrediency of any other grace but faith and no merit in faith but all of grace for which he may see Mr. Crandons first parallell Part 2. pag. 215. It followes If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of justification and can this be unlesse it be also said that we made the Gospel then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of donation But how this can follow I think few but himself can see It will onely follow that the Gospel cannot justifie us without us that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli Ser. 15. will follow He that made thee without thee doth not justifie thee without thee It will follow that somewhat is to be done by us without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious Qui ergo fecit te sine te non justificat te sine te and how the second can follow that the Gospel is our instrument of justification I desire to know If Naamans dipping himself seven times in Jordan rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosie will it follow that Jordan was his instrument whereby he cured himself If the Angels moving on the water Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entred will it then follow that it was either the Angels or his instrument that first entred and not rather the instrument of God onely And to his question moved Can this be unlesse we made the Gospel If we should grant that it is our instrument will this follow Can no man use an instrument unlesse he first made it Peter it seems was no fisher but rather a Cutler and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear or else he could not have used it as his instrument Neither followes it that God and we are concauses It would onely follow that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give That of Austin will follow which immediately is added in the place quoted Ergo fecit nescientem justificat volentem tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua He therefore that made thee unwilling doth not justifie thee unwilling yet he doth justifie thee lest it should be thine own righteousnesse It will then follow that in self-denyal renouncing all self-righteousnesse we humbly accept what God of grace doth give After these supposed absurdities we have a list of subtle questions Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny as appears in his words that follow and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2 1 Thess 2.13 before mentioned here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification and by the help of him and light borrowed from his illuminate notions I shall aym somewhat at it to answer his respective to Justification If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God and from faith then God must convey efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification and till I have his answer why should I be so vain as to confute his There followes Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weaknesse as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut fiat potens efficax Quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter Aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium For answer
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
This proposition consists of two parts 1. That faith puts into possession of Christ 2. That justification necessarily followes this possession But I shall stand upon the proof of neither seeing as in themselves they are plain so they are confessed by Mr. Baxter Faith then is either the efficient or instrument in our justication Not the efficient all know and therefore an instrument 4. That which is ascribed in Scripture both to God and man in a work in which there is a concurrence of God and man in such expressions which usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise is not unfitly called an instrument both of God and man in such a work This I know not how fairly can be denyed and any man will but abuse his reason that calls for a proof of it But faith in Scripture is ascribed both to God and man in the work of justification in which there is a mutual concurrence of God and man and in words that usually hold out the working of an instrument and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise Therefore faith is not unfitly called the instrument of God and man in justification The Minor consists of four parts 1. That faith in justification is ascribed both to God and man and this consists also of two parts 1. That faith is ascribed to God in justification and this we have already proved from Rom. 3.30 Gal. 3.8 as it is also ascribed to him in sanctification Act. 17.9 2. That it is ascribed to man in justification which is held out to us wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith seeing faith is the act of man and the Prophet tells us The just shall live by his faith which the Apostle applyes to justification Rom. 1.17 Gal. 3.11 The second part in this Proposition is That there is a mutual concurrence of God and man in this work as God gives a discharge so man accepts Which by Mr. Br. himself is acknowledged according to that before quoted out of Austin The third part is That thâ—â— is ascribed to God and man in expressions that usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument which the phrases by and through do manifest The fourth is That it cannot be fairly interpreted otherwise or of any other thing but an instrument And this is also clear Either it must hold out a meritorious cause a meer condition or else an instrument A meritorious cause none will say a meer condition or bare causa sine quâ non it cannot be for two reasons 1. Such phrases are uncouth to say That a thing is done by that which is meerly a condition sine quâ non of it 2. There are many other such conditions to which this is never thus applyed as the Apostle saith To which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Sonne Heb. 1.5 To which of the Angels said he at any time Sit on my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstoole Heh 1.13 so we may say To which of the graces when all are reckoned up by number was it ever said that we are justified by it Tthe conclusion then followes as before that faith is an instrument of God and man in justification 5. Out of this we may more briefly thus argue If the holy Ghost single out faith from among all other graces which are yet conditions or causae sine quibus non and ascribes alone to it that which in the ordinary acceptation holds out an instrumental efficiency then it is not a bare condition or causa sine quâ non but an instrumental efficient But the holy Ghost singles out faith from among all other graces which are conditions and causae sine quibus non and ascribes to it and no other that which in the ordinary acceptation implies an iâ—strumental efficiency The conclusion then followes that faith is an instrumental efficient in justification Lastly To bring if it may be a compromizing argument If faith works at least that which is proportionable to an instrument properly and rigidly so called in the work of justification then it is not unfitly called by the name of an instrument This is plain that which does work that every way answers to the work of an instrument that may fitly be called by that name But faith works at least that which is proportionable to the work of an instrument This is confest by Mr. Br. who is ready to yield that it should be called Instrumentum Metaphoricum and a Metaphor is a figure whereby a word is carried out of its most proper signification unto an other that carries resemblance and proportion with it In case then it does not that whch is proportionable to an instrument properly so called it is no instrumentum Metaphporicum but Catachresticon And indeed Mr. Baxters glosse renders it such a Catachresis as may make all Rhetorique ashamed of it A Metaphoricall Instrument that shall have no resemblance of an instrument in it But if any will say that an instrument is externall sensible whether it be for operation or reception but faith is internall invisible and therefore no instrument rigidly and properly so called though there be no cogent reason to yield it for as is the agent so well may be the instrument yet I shall not be so stiff to contend about it yield that it doth the work to put into Christ from whom Justification necessarily followes and I will no longer contend about the Word but let it be an instrument in exact property of speech or in a Metaphor as men shall please As to that of the sole sufficiency of the Word without faith as an instrument in Justification I might take up an argument from Mr. Baxters and thus reason That which cannot bring a man to the works that are antecedent to justification cannot justify This is clear That which cannot work the prerequisites cannot work the thing it self But the Word alone according to Mr. Baxter cannot bring a man to these antecedent works Sect. 14. Chap. 29. Ergo. But I shall content my self at present with this onely That which the Word saies is done by faith it cannot do without it This is clear But the Word saies and frequently saies we are justified by faith Ergo the Word cannot justify without faith Here some distinction must be used if any evasion be endeavored But then it must be confessed that it is an other kind of justification that is spoke to by Mr. Baxter then is laid down in Scripture For scripture-Scripture-justification is still by faith that is the Holy Ghosts constant language And to come to a right understanding if it may be of parties somewhat must be yielded and somewhat asserted and maintained That which must be yielded is That God in his Word declares upon what terms a man may attain unto justification and to this the Word
to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazâ—n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâ—ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
expresse words that he hath said it will it not be said on Mr. Baxters credit that I said it and wrong'd him in it But I desire the Reader to peruse the whole Chapter and in case he find not Mr. Baxters name there at all then he must needs conclude that this was spoken at least improvidè et inconsultè and some testimony of humane frailty given in it I recite indeed some passages of Mr. Baxters in that Chapter without his name being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any such opinion or that he had laid any such charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands How can he tell that I mean him in those passages seeing I never named him but that the words are his And when these words now in question produc'd at a good distance from the other are none of his who can say that I meant him much lesse can they say that I have expressely charged them uppon him If they be in any odde corner of his book as he saies he knows not but that they may be he then may be yet charged with them and therefore injuriously complains of any injurious charge upon him But to return to what we have in hand Though in Mr. Baxters five first Reasons there is much very well worth animadversion yet seeng there is nothing but that which hath either already been spoken to or else that tends to the overthrow of that senselesse sottish tenent which I professe to abhorre I shall passe them by For his additionall 26. Arguments which he sets I know not for what reason at a great distance from the rest the greatest part of them are brought and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himselfe set up I think his misconceit first hatch't it and I am well content to stand by and see him murder it For so many of them as look at all in opposition to any thing that I hold I shall take them into consideration His two first arguments drawn from Authority Arguments bowrrowed from humane authority examined the first of the Assembly of Divines and others of a number of Fathers are brought to prove that the profession of a justifying faith is required to baptisme and what is that to me who never denyed it but in plain words have often affirmed it It is sufficiently implyed where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptisme A dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollos Jesus is the Christ and when I say that this entitles I cannot mean concealed or denyed but openly professed If I say that a man hath six pence in his purse may dine at such an ordinary I do not mean with six pance concealed or denyed but produced and payed Have I not both the words professing and profession both in the margent and in the Index seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my self further in this thing I do believe and professe to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospell preacht and the truth of it published and opened shall professedly abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever and choose the Christian way for salvation promising to follow the rules of it is to be baptized and his seed and that upon a right not onely coram Ecclesia but coram Deo It being the mind of God that such should be admitted The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker against Dr. Ward is onely worthy enquiring into citing Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker as Mr. Baxter observes But Mr. Gataker himself understands not as he saies what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgement of the Apostles gave right to those that desired baptisme and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker opposeth The authorities quoted by him reach not the thing that we contend about Luther saies He meaning Philip will not baptize him unlesse he beleeve I say the same Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptisme before they believed Calvin saies He had not baptized him without true faith which is doubtlesse to be understood of fides quam not quâ credimus as appears in his words before There is no doubt but Ananias had first faithfully instructed Paul in the principles of godlinesse A beliefe of such principles then Calvin meanes Bucer speakes onely of profession of faith and requiring of men to believe Neither is there any thing in Whitakers testimony that comes up to our purpose For Mr. Marshalls Sermon of unity that is added I have it not and there is nothing quoted out of it Whereas it is said that an hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose I say if it be but to this purpose it is not to our present purpose If they be brought to prove that justifying faith is required of men before baptisme they may well prove that but as I have said so I do say I think never man denyed it Dr. Ward I believe never opposed it If they be brought to prove that no faith that is short of that which is justifying gives title to baptisme and speak no more than those already quoted they speak not home to the purpose And in case there be any that have said that Baptisme still presupposeth regeneration and that we baptize infants or men of age onely upon this supposition as regenerate As Mr. Baxter Append. pag. 71. saies that Learned Divines have given Papists great advantage in mistaking the nature of justifying Faith thinking that it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins So I may say that those whosoever they are that have confounded Covenant-holinesse with that of regeneration and inherent sanctification have given as great advantage to others yea to the Papists themselves And as the former doctrine ha's perplexed many a weak soul being not able to make good their assurance they conclude thereupon their want of Faith so these as much perplex the consciences of those that administer this Ordinance which I had rather expresse in Mr. Baxters words then mine own Append pag. 70 71. No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but to himself because he can be certain of no mans justification being not certain of the sincerity of their faith And if he should adventure to administer upon probabilities or charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seal of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certain but that he shall thus abuse it adding further I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused me to abstain from administring the Lords Supper for so many years And I confesse as ingenuously that in case he can work me to his opinion I stand resolved for present
to baptize no Infant as being unable to know the Parents faith to justification and further with Walaes concluding that the Parents faith doth not justifie the child but as Calvin resolves lib. 4. instit cap. 16. Sect. 20. they are baptized into future faith and repentance which Walaeus also sayes is the opinion of most others Neither shall I baptize any man of years till I have as high assurance if not more of his justification than Mr. Baxter seems to think any man can have of his own If this must stand then Paedobaptists and Anabaptists must all leave their Principles and both men and women when they have learn'd to read that new name in the white stone that is have concluded their assurance must turn Sebaptists and then let us look for as many counterfeits as there were Jews in Christs time with broad Phylacteries Those that bottom Baptisme on the Covenant holinesse of Covenant distinct from that of sanctification stand ensnared in none of these difficulties or inextricable perplexities All the following Arguments to the 9th may be easily granted and that is thus formed Titles given by Apostles do not argue that in their thoughts they were alwaies answered with inherent grace If the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptized till they see them prove apostates or hypocrites then they did take all the baptized to be probably justified though they might know that there were hypocrites among them yet either they knew them not or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know But the antecedent is true Therefore For the truth of the antecedent here laid down That the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptized I expect better proof then a naked affirmation And all that is brought for proof is I need not cite Scripture to prove that the baptized ar called by the Apostles Believers Saints Disciples Christians Mr. Bl. hath done it already pag. 28. And he very well knowes that I there make it good That those titles are not proper to the justified but ordinarily given to those that are not justified nor in any saving condition But if my words in the place quoted or elsewhere may not be heard Mr. Baxters sure will take who in his Saints rest Part 4. Sect. 3. p. 105. saith There are many Saints or sanctifyed men that yet shall never come to heaven who are onely Saints by their separation from Paganisme into fellowship with the visible Church but not Saints in the strictest sense by separation from the ungodly into the fellowship of the mysticall body of Christ quoting these following Scriptures Heb. 10.29 Deut. 7.6 and 14.2 21. and 26.19 and 28.9 Exod. 19.6 1 Cor. 7.13 14. Rom. 11.16 Heb. 3.1 compared with vers 12. 1 Cor. 3.17 and 14.33 1 Cor. 1.2 compared with 11.20 21. c. Gal. 3.26 compared with Gal. 3.3 4. and 4.11 and 5.2 3 4. John 15.2 His demand therefore to me is strange Now who knows not that salvation is made the portion of Believers Saints Disciples when he himself affirms that there are Saints that never shall be saved He afterwards puts a further question Is it another sort of them or doth the Scripture use to divide Saints as a genus into two species Not that I know of It is but an aequivocum in sua aequivocata The name belongs to them but as the name of a Man to a Corps c. Then it seems that there is nothing of Reality in such Separations Camero tells us otherwise that there is a reality in this Saintship by separation In the relation of his dispute with Courcellius he affirmed that the Text of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 was without doubt to be understood of reall holinesse To which Courcellius replying He that is really holy hath no need of regeneration and baptisme But Infants of Believers after they are borne have need of baptisme and regeneration Ergo. Which Camero answered as the relation sayes by distinguishing of real holinesse which is twofold One consisting in the bare relation of the person to the people of God or the Church and depends wholly upon birth within the pale of the Church and of parents embracing the Covenant The other is c. And it seems that the Scripture is still under the change of equivocal speeches all over As Camero hath somewhere observed that the word Saints in Scripture is far more frequently taken for Saints on Earth then for Saints in heaven so I doubt not but it may be maintained that it speaks far more frequently of Saints by dedication and separation and so of Believers and Disciples by profession then by inherent qualification and doth it in all these places speak equivocally had it been affirmed to be Genus Analogum in opposition to uni vocum Scripture Language real and not aequivocal as is said of Ens in respect of Substantia Accidens it had been lesse but to make nothing of this noble priviledge of which Scripture speaks so honourably is too plainly to side against the truth it self I would know for my learning what advantage or profit a dead Corps is in Capacity to enjoy I think one at all but these as the Apostle tells us have much every way even they that have no more then sanctity of this nature If such equivocation be found in the word Saint their the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer and believers having their denomination from their faith that is equivocal in like manner and so our Common division of faith into dogmatical or historical temporary miraculous and justifying is but a division of an aequivocum in sua aequivocata which I should think no man would affirm much lesse Mr. Baxter who makes common and special graces to differ onely gradually and then as cold in a remisse degree may grow to that which is intense so one aequivocatum may rise to the nature of another animal terrestre may become Sidus coeleste one of our dogs that we use on Earth may become a star in heaven then miraculous faith it self hath onely the name and nothing of the power and nature of faith in it Judas had power given him to cast out unclean spirits Maetth 10.1 4. and he never had faith that justifieth if his faith was onely aequivocal then the unclean Spirits were equivocall likewise I shall never believe that an aequivocal faith can cast out a real devil The Apostle tells us of faith to the remooval of Mountains void of charity 1 Cor. 13.2 If this were equivocall faith those must be equivocal Mountains Mr. Baxter addes To put the matter beyond doubt I wish Mr. Bl. to consider that it 's not onely these forementioned titles but even the rest which he will acknowledge proper to the regenerate which are given by the Apostles generally to the baptized Instances given in Adoption Gal. 3.26 27. union with
distinction of a Church into visible and invisible Arg. 12 12. The children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to baptisme This is clear enough But men short of justifying faith are children of God even those that drew down judgements on the Old world as Gen. 6.2 The whole body of the children of Israel Deut. 14.1 Those that most provoked God amongst them Those that revolted from Christ for whom Paul had so much heavinesse in the flesh Rom. 9.4 If the way of their adoption or sonship be questioned doubtlesse it â—s such as hath with it an inheritance for a child is not adopted but to be provided for And what inheritance can be conceived but Church priviledges Greater will not be yeelded and lesser to one thus related cannot be assigned and what priviledge can be inherited if there be no door of admittance to it Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme 13. Those whom God ingraffs by his power into the true Arg. 13 Olive and makes partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive they have right in the sight of God to be admitted This is plain God engraffing right must not be denyed But he engraffs by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles and we expect the like of the Church of the Jewes as appears from the Apostle Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme I had thought to have ended here but let me add two more 14. All of those that professedly imbrace a Gospel tender Arg. 14 in which there is a conditional promise of Justification Adoption Glorification have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances ordinarily necessary and requisite to bring them up to these conditions and to the fruition of these glorious priviledges and consequently to baptisme the leading priviledge This none can deny that know the readiness of Christ in imparting saving Ordinances to a people But those that are short of faith which is justifying may imbrace a Gospel-tender in which there is a conditional promise of Justification Adoption Glorification Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances and consequently to Baptisme 15. If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptisme from gifts Arg. 15 that are common to the justified and unjustified then faith which is short of justifying gives right in the sight of God to Baptisme This none can deny unless they will call the Apostles Logick into question and deny his consequence But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptisme from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified this is plain Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we The holy Ghost there is the gift of the holy Ghost then poured out the gift of tongues as in the 45. and 46. verses is held forth which is a gift not onely inferiour to charity but such as may be sever'd from it 1 Cor. 13.1 A gift of that kind that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did as in an instant confer They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptisme Arg. 16 16. If the promise be to others besides believers then so is the seal for to whom God promiseth to them he engageth himself to perform But the promise is to others Therefore the seal is to others This will be evident if it be once understood that it is onely the conditional Covenant which God sealeth by the Sacraments for this promise is made to unbelievers though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition Arg. 17 17. If God do no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applyed to hypocrites then he actually sealeth to hypocrites But God doth no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly administred to hypocrites The Minor is proved by the enumeration of the several acts 1. God maketh a promise 2. He commandeth Ministers to publish it 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments as mutually engaging signs or seals 4. He commands Ministers to deliver or apply them to those that professe their consent and desire to enter or renew the Covenant These two last I confesse I have borrowed and that from Mr. Br. pag. 223. of his Infant-Baptisme and whether they make for him or against him to prove or disprove their right which he here calls hypocrites and distinguishes from believers I leave to the censure of the intelligent Reader Mr. Baxters Arguments reviewed and his Vindication examined Argument 1. MR. Baxter argues When Christ saith Make me Disciples of all Nations Matth. 28.29 Vindicated baptizing them he meant sincere disciples though we cannot know them to be sincere I have answered that this discipleship which Christ here mentions is such of which whole Nations are in a Capacity which was made plain by the Commission concluding If whole Nations yea the whole universal visible Church consisting of discipled Nations were all believers it were a great happinesse Christ on the contrary saith Many are called but few chosen Mr. Baxter replyes If it be not sincere disciples that Christ means in that Text Then no Apostle was bound by that Commission and great Precept to endeavour the making of sincere Disciples but onely counterfeits and half Christians But the Antecedent is false Therefore I am sorry to hear the Constitution of visible Churches to suffer this brand of making counterfeit and half Christians It is well known whose Language it is That all charging or urging of duty upon unregenerate persons is onely to bring them to hypocrisie Do not all know that the means necessarily conducible must be used in order to the end proposed In order to make men sincere disciples they must be made visible professing disciples They may be half Christians if Mr. Baxter will have it so in order to whole Christians Dr. Ames if I do not misremember compares visible Churches to rough stones taken out of the quarry and invisible Christians to stones hewed and polished I am sure they must be taken out of the quarry to be put into the building It is said that Melanchton used to wish that there were more hypocrites in the world then there were not that he would have more dissembling among those that made profession of Christianity but more brought in to make profession Profession being a good step in the way to sincerity which a man would think Mr. Baxter would not dislike who so far speaks the mind of Christ towards men that if they will come but onely to a
regenerate or unregenerate which is an undiscernable work and accordingly to admit or refuse SECT XIII Proposition 11. The Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring a man of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest to the terms and propositions of the Covenant may serve to work a man of profession of faith unto faith saving and justifying a man in name the Lords to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm First Men of that interest that baptisme receives as the intention of the work in order to salvation these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation as the end of the work likewise But Baptisme receives men of visible profession onely and visible interest as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation Therefore the Lords Supper carries on these by sanctification as the intention of the work to salvation The Proposition cannot be denyed unlesse we will without reason bring in that vast difference between these two outward vâ—â—â—ble Ordinances both intrusted in the hands of man as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest and the other restrained to invisible members The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation the other shall be in capacity to nourish and bring on very few The Assumption cannot be denyed That Baptisme receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation and hath been abundantly proved we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness which is onely a visible interest men of years were baptized and by just warrant yet may in case not baptized upon a visible profession The conclusion then followes that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work that Baptisme receives to salvation Secondly If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith and sanctification to salvation But it is the mind of God in the Gospell revealed that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Supper The Lords Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation The Proposition is clear unlesse we will make mens admission most mens admission meerly vain having no power nor any capacity to advance their happinesse but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement Whatsoever the secret will of God to us unknown is that in the event it shall prove yet the work it self must have a tendency and power respective to those for whom it is appointed for edification not for destruction The Assumption is evident that those of visible interest having not attained sanctification according to the mind of God revealed in his Word should have admittance by the barres that are assigned for mens exclusion The alone barres that are ordinarily assigned to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table are ignorance Error and Scandal But many that cannot be charged with ignorance error or scandall are yet short of sanctification Many short of sanctification then have no barre to their admission Either visible interest with capacity to improve it or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission But saving interest in â—he Covenant cannot then to use Mr Cobbets words Vindication pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin or anomie breach of rule or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule never to administer any Church ordinances since they sometimes shall break that rule in administring it to hypocrites and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones yet not being able to know that secret infallibly they observe not the rule in faith but doubtingly and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations If any reply that saving interest in the Covenant is the rule but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule but as farre as our charity can judge men to be in grace we must admit them to this seal of grace To this I have several things to reply 1. God never puts mens charity to this work as respective to admission to ordinances to judge whether in grace or not whether regenerate or in unregeneration And indeed charity which is assigned by some to that place is most unfit to judge A Judge or Umpire in a businesse must be impartial and have nothing to byasse him on any hand But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins which is no blemish of the grace but a demonstration that this is none of its office If then man must judge as he is most unmeet his reason and not his love must take the chair for it and go as high as conjecture can reach 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake then the rule is broke which though these will say is not the admitters sin seeing the thing is not so scibile or of possibility to be known and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge yet a seal is by this meanes put to a blank which is no small prophanation and the ordinance administred solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement 3. Though we infallibly know a mans unsanctified condition and were able to charge it yet whilest it is not open and breakes not into scandal we cannot upon this account as is confest exclude him from the Sacrament That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6 observes we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind Ravanellus as the last man in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant yet Judas was known to Christ to be a thief a Devil and yet he receives him Christ had doubtlesse power vested in him for his exclusion The non-suspition of the Apostles nor the close carriage of his treachery could not then have excusâ—d his receiving in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest though unsanctified might be admitted And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witnesse though it be a truth yet it serves not to take off the Argument Had it not been the mind of God that
men of his interest should be received then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it and given him admission to it And what he did according to the mind of God as a Minister by a Minister may be done And to pronounce him at that time that he received it such that had no right for admission yet to admit him were such a precedent as Christ would not have given Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account that the knew what was in them Joh. 2.23 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God that men of that standing should partake of it If it be objected that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation being a reprobate I answer respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed he was in capacity of improvement The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiours and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will and not to that which is in Gods secret purpose Let us summe up the argument briefly into this form Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification and not to destruction Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joynt strength applyed in power to the understanding may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms conditions and propositions of the Covenant may work men of profession of faith to faith saving and justifying may work a man that is onely in name the Lords to be truely and savingly his This none can deny if Law and Gospel cannot do it in the way of instruments and ordinances appointed of God there is no way on earth in which it can be done But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding Therefore the conclusion followes that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified The Assumption is clear that in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospell There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out Christ made a curse and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin even all that which sinne according to the Law did demerit There are sins bruises transgressions wounds There we have the summe and substance of the Gospel held out Christs death for remission of sinne laid open There we have Christ a curse which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression There we have Christ a sacrifice which is that which the Gospel doth promise all brought home and applyed to the understanding of the communicant Fourthly That which is high in the aggravating of sinne to the conscience and clear in holding out the pardon of sinne may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying This is clear which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sinne in its aggravations and Gospel tenders for the removal of it The Assumption that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated and the removal of it held out is also clear and may easily per partes be proved 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced Zach. 12.10 They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his onely sonne and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that is in bitternesse for his first-born and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers and Elders met in the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication where speaking to those that joyn with them at the Lords Table pag. 104. You must so remember Christ as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him Christ is presented in the Sacrament as a broken Christ his body broken and his blood poured out And the very breaking of the bread understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him Was he crucified for you and will you crucify him by your sins And besides the breaking of the bread is not onely ordained to be a motive unto brokennesse of heart for sin but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto And pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramentall as to find power comming out of Christ to subdue all your sins and iniquities as the diseased woman felt vertue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament to heal all the sinful issues of our soules there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified And pag. 106. You must continue in remembring Christ in the Sacrament till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world and all worldly things Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world and when he was crucifying the whole world was in darknesse and obscurity and he is propounded in the Sacrament as a persecuted broken crucified Christ despising and being despised of the World And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death you will find vertue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world and all worldly things And pag. 107. Cease not remembring Christ till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in humility is one of the chiefest Matth. 11.29 Learn of me for I am humble And Christ in the Sacrament is presented as humbling himself to the death of the crosse for our sakes And what a shame is it to remember an humble Christ with a proud heart The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental when sanctified is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts And pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts when you are at the Sacrament For as Christ in the Ministery of his Word preacheth to the ear and by the ear conveyeth himself into the
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy without blemish Ephe. 5.25 26 27. As the spot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us and working us up to new obedience so the guilt is removed by his sufferings He blots out their transgressions for his Names sake He remembers them no more He hides his face from them He casts them into the bottom of the sea removes them as far as the East is from the West He doth not one of these to leave the other undone He vouchsafes purifying and he vouchsafes pacifying grace He delivers from the wrath to come and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light He conferres habitual graces and he honours with relative priviledges Fifthly These may be distinguished Blood and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided but they must by no means be divided Christ doth not impart his merit where he doth deny his Spirit We account it a great presumption in men of years to talke of justification and want sanctification and we can say to such If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his God writes his Law in the heart and puts it into the inward parts where he remembers sin no more Jer. 31.33 They are quickened together with Christ that have their trespasses forgiven them Col. 2.13 And it is an unwarrantable conceit to imagine that relative priviledges of adoption and pardon of sin are conferred on infants in Baptisme or otherwise when their natures remain still the same and unchanged who can think that God fits all of age for glory that he takes into glory and yet takes infants into glory their impurity and birth-defilement continuing Seeing that we have instances as of Gods love of infants Rom. 9.13 of Christs blessing of them Matth. 19.16 so also of the gift of his Spirit Jer. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 In case the former may be avoided yet certainly the later is above exception The reason given by Christ of that sentence of his holding forth an absolute necessity of regeneration Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God is the pollution of the first birth as appears by his own words ver 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former That which is born of the flesh is flesh and this is of equal concernment to infants and men of years uncleannesse of birth as well as uncleannesse of life stands as a barre to our entrance into heaven and no unclean person must enter there Sixthly The Sacraments especially those of initiation whether in the old or new Covenant about which concerning this in question there is most dispute The Sacraments especially those of initiation have respeâ—t to both of these havo respect to this whole work both of the change of our nature and the removal of our guilt As the have respect to the one so also to the other and that the whole of their work and the way how it is wrought may be better understood we are to consider that First Somewhat is hinted and implyed in those respective signs of Circumcision and Baptisme and that is our uncleannesse in nature and guilt contracted upon it Why should either infant or man of years have the foreskin of his flesh in that way by Divine appointment cut off but to let us understand the propagation of corruption and derivation of it from man to posterity Why should water be applyed which is of an abstersive cleansing faculty but to let us know that there is uncleannesse to be removed Cleansing for that which is clean is vain and needlesse As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath so this cleansing implyes filth and consequently guilt filth and guilt being inseparable Secondly Somewhat is signified and taught us in them somewhat the bare signs themselves are apt to signifie viz. That the taking off of the staine and the removal of our guilt is to be done by anothers power Why is this applyed by another hand but to let us know that it is above our strength Somewhat not the signes of themselves but the Word of the Covenant that is annext teaches and that is That the blood of Christ removes this guilt and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain This the signes of themselves could never shew but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonstrate that remission of guilt is the work of the blood of Christ and Regeneration or Sanctification the work of the Spirit That the water in Baptisme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification and change of our wayes is that I know denyed by none and in the Scripture it is plain I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 Circumcision is that of the heart Rom. 2.29 which by the Apostle Col. 2.11 is interpreted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Baptisme is the same as to the signification as we see in the same place from the Apostle Col. 2.11 12 13. In whom ye are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven all your trespasses And this death to sin and life in grace are both from the Spirit Rom. 8.11 12 13. and both of these Baptisme holds out to us Rom. 6.4 We are buried with him by Baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life But whether the blood of Christ be at all signified by this element of water some have questioned Sticking so rigidly to that phrase of the Apostle Tit. 3.5 that they will not alone have it understood of Baptisme but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptisme but the work of regeneration But this doubtlesse is a clear mistake The blood that was shed in circumcision gave the circumcised to understand that the guilt propagated could not without blood be remitted And if any think that this is too dark and obscure a proof of a Mystery of this weight let them compare with it the text under hand and the Apostles scope and aime in it which as we have heard is to shew that Abrahams circumcision was not his justification seeing he was justified by faith in his state of uncircumcision and that he received circumcision as a sign and seal of it justification is by blood Rom. 3.25 Circumcision is a sign and seal of justification Righteousnesse of
righteousnesse of faith as before was hinted in opposition to and to distinguish it from the righteousnesse of works required in the Covenant entered with man in his integrity and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law for the attainment of salvation That of works is called by the name of our righteousnesse Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.18 being to be done by our selves in our own persons as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law being required at our hands by the Law so that salvation gained this way is of our selves of works Ephes 2.8 9. This other is called the righteousnesse of faith in this text as also Phil. 3.9 Heb. 11.7 Faith being the hand that receives it of Gods free gift by grace it is called also the righteousnsse of God Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 Either as being the gift of God which that phrase seems to imply the righteousnesse which is of God by faith or else as being the work of Christ that is God So that salvation this way gained is of grace and the gift of God Ephes 2.8 These two are still opposed one to the other when one is followed the other is quit and left Rom. 10.3 They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God so also Rom. 10.5 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith 2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise that is the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith speaketh this language so that Sacraments sealing this righteousnesse they seal the whole of this Covenant 3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon and following Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse are here by the like figure comprized as appears by the Apostles words v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse This righteousnesse and blessednesse is made one and the same in those words of the Apostle Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant that brings man into Covenant with God is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought so that he is the whole of all that good that is comprized in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle Rom. 10.4 speaking of the error of the Jewes in going about to establish their own righteousnesse and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God he saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth that is finie consummans as Gomarus saith not consumens The end at which the Law aimed and not putting an end and period to it One Christ assumes to himself It becometh us to fulfil all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 The other he disclaimes Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil The Law calls us to righteousnesse but is not able to work it in us Christ hath done it for us and in our stead He is therefore called our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us in the Sacrament or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour there is a sufficient proof of this observation Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse and interesting us in this Covenant-promise They that will not allow that faith should be called an instrument of justification yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ that doth justifie And if either may be allowed as I do not doubt but that both will hold current this will hold that faith is considered here as an instrument and not as a work neither yet as an instrument of the soul producing any act beyond its self as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour but as receiving and taking in a gift from God This the Phrase of the Apostle Phil. 3.9 doth clear The righteousness of God by faith otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works yea when the words are the righteousnesse of faith the meaning must still be the righteousnesse of works as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging receives pay for working But these are made directly opposite one to the other and not confounded one with the other Rom. 10.5 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse but as an instrument applying Christ and interesting us in his righteousnesse These Positions being premised The Point proved the Observation may be easily proved that the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace and may be made good in an induction of particulars Circumcision the leading Sacrament of the old Covenant is expresly here spoken to and here we see what is the thing signified in it and sealed by it And in case we saw no more in it then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw that it was a note of distinction between them and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant yet we know that this distinction was grounded and founded in Christ By Scriptures The one stood in a visible relation to him and the other were strangers from him And the Apostle Col. 2.11 12. is full in the proof of it Having said that we are compleat in Christ enjoying him we want nothing it might be objected that we want the very leading Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God which was Circumcision The Apostle answers that in him we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ This Circumcision did figure Deut. 30.6 Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 29. And this is the work of Christ as we see in the Apostles words and therefore circumcision led to him For the following Sacrament of the Passeover if we look to the letter of the institution together with the explication given we shall find it
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
a learned Papist joynes with Protestants in the doctrine of Justification and many others This great wit of the Popish party reading Mr. Calvin to confute him in the point of justification was confuted by him and wrote with us against his own party as is not onely affirmed by men of our party as Davenant de just habit cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus Pighius saith he in his controversies largely explains and confirms our opinion 1. He excludes inherent righteousnesse from any efficacy in justification 2. He manifestly approves the imputation of Christs righteousnesse Lastly He gives his reason why the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us for justification And then addes Many more things are found in the same author who though in other controversies he maintains a fierce warre with Protestants yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Justification he fell off from the Papists and came over to our party And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of justification Pighius saith he though of a peevish spirit enough yet reading Calvin to confute Calvin in the very doctrine of justification was confuted himself and wrote with us but also acknowledged by our adversaries Albertus Pighius is checkt by Bellarmine saith Dr. Prideaux lect 5. Pag. 165. for that in reading our authors himself at last became a Lutheran in this article And that Pighius may not stand alone on our parts among Romanists Davenant in the place quoted produces many others 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entituled Antididagma Who acknowledge the imputed righteousnesse of Christ to be the chief cause of our justification Titu de justific 2. The Romish party in the Conference of Ratisbone Who saith he gave their vote the same way pag. 47. 3. Isidore Clacius orat 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Episcopus Clodiensis cap. 1. ad Ephes pag. 59 72. The two first of these authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewise Adding that Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus Arius Montanus did tread in the same path and therefore miserably suffer by the Index Expurgatorius Cardinal Contarenus is likewise frequently quoted by Amesius as on our party And Dr. Prideaux saith that almost four yeares before the Councel of Trent he had so asserted the orthodox doctrine of Justification that being as is thought taken away by poyson he did not long survive And for the whole space between Gregory and the reformation our author pronounces it that authors generally for the most part were more sound in their commentaries then in their disputations and in their meditations soliloquies and conflict of temptations then in their polemicks Bringing in Chemnitius instancing in Bonaventure and others So that in case they have one of eminence amongst us we have one of theirs as eminent and in case he should prove too light we have many more into the bargain to make up weight There followes Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can find them And his Reader will consider no more of his jeeres when he can look into his books and his eyes miffe of them Some of those of whom he hath made boast as his converts in this controversy have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have written though Mr. Baxter cannot find it I am told that I begin and say more for faiths Instrumentality in receiving Christ than for the instrumentality of it in Justification And the truth is I know not how to distinguish them If it be an instrument to receive Christ that doth justifie it is with me an instrument in Justification If mine eye be an instrument by which I receive in light for sight then mine eye is the organ or instrument of sight If I prove the one I think I cannot be denyed the other The Instrumentality of faith for receiving Christ is thus reasoned against If Faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the act or the habit of Faith that is the Instrument I am well aware that if I shall affirm either of these that then either some text of Scripture will be called for specifying such habit or act of faith in justification or a needlesse stirre will be made about these Logical notions The safest way then is to say with Scripture that faith is the grace that receives Christ and that interests us in propitiation in his blood and the grace by which upon that account we are justified without limitation of it to either the act or habit Neither can any answer as I suppose be thus given but such as will coincidere If I say the habit justifies it is as it puts forth it self into act Whether the act of faith or the habit doth justifie If I say the act justifies it must be as it comes from the habit and so both habit and act justifie Neither doth a mans justification cease when the habit of Faith in sleep ceaseth acting seeing justification denotes a state which is remaining and abiding It is further said Receiving strictly taken is ever passive A reason then may be seen why Divines have called faith a passive instrument in justification and Mr. Baxter may see a fair answer to the high and indeed scornful censure that he gives to the most learned as himself stiles them in his preface to this apology The most learned saith he in the upshot flie to this that credere is not agere but pati and is but Actio Grammatica or the name of action but Physically or Hyperphysically a suffering Is not here a curious doctrine of faith and Justification If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it But I confesse I see no reason to make receiving Neither receiving not believing are in the Authors thoughts meerly passive and consequently believing to be at least meerly passive There is alwaies an act of the will in rational agents in receiving properly so called and often of the hand The receivers of custome are agents for the States and in their receipt are active Receiving in a civil ethical lesse proper sense as is further said is but the act of accepting what is offered But is not this accepting properly receiving or is not receiving properly so called at least necessarily joyned with it in such civil ethical reception When I give a beggar an almes does not he in as strict a sense receive it as I do give it and this is either his act of acceptance or that which accompanies it If I put water into a vessel the vessel rather contains it then receives it If I give a child a lash he rather suffers then receives â—t So that receiving strictly taken is as well active as passive and rather active then passive There is added When it is onely a relation or a jus ad rem that is offered consent or acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession
comparing me to plunderers in time of fight which would but weary the Reader to see repeated whereas after other words I add I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voyce have made faith an instrument in this work speaking most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument He is pleased to reply But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received animadversions from many of the most learned judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the doctrine of faiths instrumentality but they disclaime it all some with distaste others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle Interpretation of a metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me Interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me whether Mr. C. were against it To which I answer not so much as diverse others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Object But though faith be not the instrument of our justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Answ I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yeeld to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a condition of our justification so farre Mr. C. To this I answer 1. Why have we not the authority of Divines that are open to all mens eyes rather then of those that lye dormant in his hands and there are sure more in the presse then in his private study in Manuscripts No one is produced and I scarce think can be produced 2. I would he would publish to the world the labours of these eminently learned persons that we as well as he might see their weak opposition of plain Scripture which somewhere is his free censure 3. There are those if intelligence do not deceive me that he hath said he hath brought to his judgement in this thing that yet have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have said and are they of both our minds 4. For Mr. C. upon the coming forth of this Apology he wrote to me among other things in these words Mr. C. vindicated Mr. Baxter pag. 19. citeth some words of mine about faiths instrumentality but it had been fair to have signified what I say further about it especially in my second writing when I perceived what advantage he did take of that which I had said before onely to avoid contending about words which I do not like so far Mr. C. I said in my Treatise the work about which faith is imployed is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actuall concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act of God or man can be sole instruments but there must be a mutual concurrence of both To this is replyed A dangerous doctrine in my judgement to be so nakedly affirmed no doubt but justification is a relative change and it is past controversie that it is not without the actual concurrence of man for he must perform the condition on which God will justifie him But that God is not the sole efficient nor any act of God the sole instrument I durst not have affirmed without proof Neither durst I have charged any mans speech with danger of that nature without disproof unlesse I should think it enough to make it so because in my judgement it appears so and that which is here granted as without controversie is with me a proof sufficient If it be not done without the actual concurrence of man and is done by such concurrence of which we have as many proofs as there is mention of justification by faith there must be some kind of efficiency in this concurrence There is somewhat of efficiency in mans concurrence by faith in Justifâ—cation that man should be justified by faith and faith have no hand at all in it I cannot reach I bring for proof the absurdity that will follow upon denyal in these words This must needs be granted unlesse we will bring in Dr. Crispes passive recipiency of Christ Christs abode in man without man in spight of man and suppose him to be justified in unbelief To this is replyed This is very naked asserting why did you not shew some reason of this ill consequence It 's past any reach to see the least If I were too short it is now done to my hands where a mutual concurrence of God and man in the work is confest tell me how it can be denyed unlesse Christ come into man without man and in spite of him for if man act in it he must needs be an agent It followes Why do you still confound Christs real abode in us by his Spirit with the relation we have upon justification when even now you affirmed it was a relative work as you call it I pray by the next shew us more clearly how these absurdities follow that doctrine And doth not a relative work of this nature necessarily presuppose this abode by the Spirit and is not a relative change a necessary consequent of it If strangers to Christ be justified by Christ The relative change in Justification necessarily presupposes a reall I am to learn in the doctrine of justification that desire of his I think is already satisfied I further say faith is disabled from this office in justification by this argument If faith be an instrument It is the instrument of God or man c. to which in my Treatise I answered it is the instrument of man though man do not justifie himself yet he concurres as a ready willing agent with God in it To which is replyed If this be not a palpable contradiction saying and unsaying my Logick is lesse then I thought it had been If it be mans instrument of justification and yet man do not justifie himself then either man is not man or an Instrument is not an instrument or justifying is not justifying It seems he would have us by the way know that his thoughts of his own Logick are not low The Author acquit from the charge of a palpable contradiction but if other mens Logick cannot solve this contradiction yet me thinks his might who sayes receiving strictly taken is ever passive and a man may be passive in justification and not justifie himself But perhaps with me it is of more difficulty that have affirmed That reception hath still somewhat at least of action in it but this reception here in question hath no more of action then serves to possesse it self of a free gift which ever adds honour to the giver not to the receiver I distinguish therefore of instruments of meer reception and instruments
some purpose so that a man might be married and poverty continued but Christ cannot be received and a state of unrighteousnesse remain It is said Receiving the persons into relation from whom we expect the benefit goes before the receiving the benefit by them which is usually the remote end and not the object of that first reception which is the condition Which may be true where person and benefit are separable but I cannot receive a woman in marriage and a wife after As an eternal increated righteousnesse is essential to Christ as God and the quality of righteousnesse connatural as man so a righteousnesse to constitute others righteous is essential to Christ qua Mediator without such a righteousnesse he is no high Priest for us and therefore his righteousnesse as Mediator was before very harshly called an accident It followes Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation as he is offere d in t Gospel And is he offered in the Gospel without a righteousnesse being offered in the Gospel as Mediatour and righteousnesse essentially necessary in a Mediatour resting on Christ we rest on righteousnesse 3. In my judgement saith he it is a meer fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousnesse that we may be justified constitutive thereby in such a sense at if the righteousnesse were first to be made ours in order of nature before our justification and then justification follow because we are righteous and so these were two things for to receive righteousnesse and to receive justification is one thing Gods justifying us and pardoning our sin and his constituting us righteous and his giving us righteousnesse is all one thing under several notions If it be granted that justification is verbum forense To receive a righteousnesse for justification is no fancy or delusion borrowed from proceeding in Courts of justice and holds out our acquittal or discharge from sentence and not making us formally just then it is no fancy or delusion to say that we receive a righteousnesse to be justified but dangerous as I think to deny it if righteousnesse and justification be one thing then that is a tautology Deut. 25.1 ye shall justifie the righteous and condemn the wicked Though it is impossible that God should condemn a just and justifie a wicked person as a man may yet righteousnesse and justification as wickednesse and condemnation differ both in God and mans proceedings And righteosnesse is not justification as wickednesse is not condemnation sure Davenant was high in this fancy and delusion when he thus entituled his 28. Chap. de justitia habituali Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae probatur 4. Christs satisfaction or redemption saith he solvendo pretium and merit cannot be properly received by us for they are not in themselves given to us but as tropically they may be said to be given to us because the fruit of them is given us It was not to us but to God that Christ gave satisfaction and the price of our redemption And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christs satisfaction and merit as it doth our justification thereby procured It is therefore the acknowledging of this redemption satisfaction or merit and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit and not the receiving that satisfaction or redemption our selves c. If Christ gave satisfaction to God How Christs satisfaction to God for us is receiued by us he yet gave it for us and God accounts it ours In him we have redemption through his blood Ephes 1.7 If we have it in him some way we come by it And how we come by it if we do not receive it I cannot imagine As the Sonne gives himself for our ransome to the Father So the Father gives the Sonne to us I marvell what comment will be put upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper Take eat this is my body which is broken for you as it is broken for us so it is given to us and so of the Cup This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Christ and satisfaction wrought by Christ Christ and redemption wrought by Christ are both received seeing Christ is made unto us redemption 1 Cor. 1.30 and faith is our way of receipt 5. If faith shall be said saith he to be the instrument of justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that righteousnesse whereby we are justified then it will follow that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ eo nomine because it receiveth him and the instrument of our adoption eo nomine because it receiveth adoption and so the same act of faith which entitles us to justification doth not entitle us to any other blessing nor that act that entitles us to Christ doth entitle us to justification unlesse there be several justifying acts but every particular mercy hath a particular act as the instrument of receiving it which is no Scripture doctrine Mr. Baxter being given to understand by a friend that this is scarce intelligible he hath expressed himself with more cleernesse in a postscript in this syllogism If the apprehension of Christs righteousnesse and no other act should strictly be the justifying act of faith and that eo nomine because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our justification then it would follow 1. That the apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act 2. And that we have right to every other particular mercy eo nomine because we apprehend that mercy and so our right to every particular benefit of Christ were received by a distinct act of faith But the consequent is false Therefore so is the antecedent The consequent is here twofold the first I yield but deny the second The apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act but that there needs distinct acts of faith to receive other mercies does not follow upon this principle which Mr. Baxter so far as I understand him in the following words hath proved when it lay on his hand to disprove Having mentioned several Sciptures 1 Joh. 5.12 Joh. 3.16 Joh. 1.12 he addes as a result from all So that one entire faith is the condition of our right Interest in Christ gives interest in all other priviledges to all particular benefits And he must remember that it is the first according to the tenour of the promise that gives right to all He that spared not his own Sonne but gave him for us how will he not with him give us all things Rom. 8.32 When the Prophet was to confirm Ahaz in the truth of a promise then to be made good he holds out to him the promise of the Messiah and onely that promise which would not have carried strength but that interest
mentioned in Scripture which is not ascribed also to faith The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh so doth faith Acts 15.9 Devils are cast out by the Spirit of God so they are cast out by faith Mar. 9 The Spirit is our strength in the inward man Ephes 3.16 and faith is our strength 1 Pet. 5.9 Rom. 4.20 All things are possible to the Spirit of God And all things are possible to him that beleeves Mar. 9.23 The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us respective to salvation after the grace of faith is implanted without us what is ascribed to the one as the efficient is ordinary ascribed to the other as the instrument But these answers he confesses are besides the point This simile might therefore have escaped this quarrel in the two next he will sure then be so punctual that all Readers shall say Rem acu tetigisti 5. It is added When you have laid down one proposition Man cannot justifie himself by believing without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct proposition And God will not justifie an unbelieving man who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justify man unlesse his faith be the instrument of it and do you not seem to imply that man without God doth justifie himself when you say man cannot justifie himself by believing without God No nor with him neither for none can forgive sins but God onely even to another but who can forgive himself I think all is laid down so fairly that were I to lay it down again I should not lay it down in Mr. Baxters words Nor will God justifie a man unlesse faith be the instrument he would then soon have challenged it as a petitio principii seeing it is that which is in question I might have said that God will not justify a man except he disclaim his own righteousnesse and accept of Christs righteousnesse to justification but that which I did say is the same with any friend or fair adversary and so it is a disjunct proposition fairly laid down and I imply that which I speak and if any will have it further expressed God will not justifie man without the concurrence of his faith There followes In deed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the onely man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him It seems by this jest that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not so good a proficient in Popish mysteries as by Mr Crandon he stands charged otherwise he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others The Pope hath his visible pardoner as well as receivers He gives power for the pardon of sin as the supposed head of the Church by application of the supererogated merits of the Saints together with the merits of Christ out of the treasure of the Church of which he hath the keys Now he sinnes as a man and receives pardon as a Church-member and to that purpose hath his confessor A man as visible as other men And speaking of his sad condition on this supposition he seems to lay farre more stresse on the pardons of Rome then they themselves as though he stood in some eminent danger of hell upon the want of such a pardon when he might know that according to their principles all his danger is an abode some longer time in Purgatory which is their trimming place in the way to heaven For if the pardon find him in a mortal sinne which alone is deserving of hell it is altogether inefficacious mortall sinne puts a barre to the working of it It is the temporal punishment which this pardon remits and not the eternal and in case it were true that this could not be done to the Pope there being none above him his successor with a wet finger can do it for him As to that which was forgotten it had been to his honour if it had never been remembred I forgot saith he that every believer forgiveth himself for I did not believe it Such sarcasmes befit not grave Writers especially when all Reformers to speak in his own language must bear a share in the contumely when they had it in their thoughts in this way to imitate the Apostle in giving all to grace and taking all from man that one would rise out of themselves to make this sport with it It followes 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying doth God effect our Justification by the instrumental efficient causation of our faith If this were my fault yet Mr. Baxter of all men is most unfit to give it in charge other men must have a proof for every word but he himself may heap up distinctions propositions conclusions without any colour of proof at all where is his proof of that which in the last Section number 6. must be remembred and of that great thing num 7. he would desire should be observed I suppose he will have ten to remember and observe before one to believe it Others can see proof and send their Reader hither for proof though he cannot find it My work was to shew that though it be mans act yet God may make use of it as instrumentally serviceable in this work and whether this hath been nakedly said or proved let the dis-interested Reader give his sentence if that which I have said will not satisfie let Mr. Burges be consulted in his late Treatise of Justifica Part 2. I conclude That which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality but where there is a concurrence of agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold To this is answered He that will or can make him a Religion of words or syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an article of his faith what you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate Bona verba bono viro desunt Seeing I find the man in this mood I say no more but seeing he knowes not how to ariolate what I mean by this or that I have no mind to help him in this art of soothsaying and shall let the words stand for their use that bring a mind to understand rather then to exercise their wit to carp at what they read Of the sole sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant as an instrument in justification I shall now leave to the Readers consideration whether Mr. Baxters exceptions against the instrumentality of faith in justification be of that validity as to overthrow it and whether his doctrine of this subject be of that
clearnesse as to accuse the doctrine of his adversaries which are all Reformers Forreign and English of such notable obscurity I must now look into that which he hath said for the sole-sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Gospel to stand in stead of faith for an instrument in this work And if I meet with no more satisfaction in this then in the former I must crave leave to say that I have very little in either I said in my Treatise of the Covenant The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of justification adding This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise up man to justification To which Mr. Baxter replyes I say there is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum And I say still that God acts not in this work without the concurrence of him that is justified which Mr. Baxter grants And this concurrence of man having its instrument In justification of man God acts not without man God thereby doth carry on his work otherwise the Apostle had not onely said that God is a justifier of those that believe in Jesus Rom. 3.26 but also that he justifies the circumcision by faith and the uncircumsion through faith And this act of man is interpretativè the instrument of God but more directly and properly the instrument of man where I say it is of it self unable to raise up man to justification he gives in his answer In which we have First his concession what of it self it is not able to do Secondly his assertion what of it self it can do Thirdly his explication under what notion it doth it His concession is That it is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to justification Mr. Baxters concession as to humble to give faith regenerate c. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any supply for those antedaneous works or whether it be employed in those works at all His assertion is that as to the act of justification His assertion or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse it is able of it self But it is worth our enquiry to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse whether to the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate or to the humble believing and regenerate soul The former are not in a present capacity of him and the latter are already in possession if he can find me an humble believing regenerate man void of all right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse I will confesse that the grant of the new Covenant is of it self able to do what Mr. Baxter sayes I looked that he should have proved that the grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel doth this constitutivè as he useth to speak That it should work an unjustified man up to a justified state but it seems he will have it to do it onely declarative to make it appear that he is already justified which honours is very low and that about which I intend not to raise disputes If I mistake him and that he will say that he means more then a naked declaration I would he would explaine himself and speak out what more it is that he inteds for if he intend more I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction seeing he talkes of conveyance right to them that all know are possessed before-hand of right The same Gospel-grant which works those antecedaneous acts of which he speaks doth together convey right to all those in whom such a work is found It is able to do it of it self as he explaines himself ac signum voluntatis divinae but where is it revealed from God that either the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate shall have right to Christ pardon justification or that the humble believing regenerate want it Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Christ and life in him how doth a man in faith stand in need of a new conveyance of right to him There followes If you should mean that that of it self i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able I answer that is not fitly called disablity or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coefficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualites till the condition were performed This assertion That there is no efficiency in faith but a naked presence to stand by and as it were to look on in the work of justification calls for some proof seeing he well knowes that among all Reformers his adversaries this will passe for so high a Paradox How is Christ a propitiation through faith and how are we still said to be justified by faith If no more then a bare presence is required the presence of other graces is equally required as love meeknesse temperance chastity they have still been confest necessary in justification quoad presentiam though not quoad efficientiam yet Mr. Baxter can I think no where shew that Christs is set forth a propitiation through any one of these graces or that we are justified by love meeknesse temperance c. I shall as soon believe that the presence of the eye is barely required for sight without further efficiency as I shall believe that the bare presence of faith is required and no more for justification and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed intending as he expresseth himself that after the condition is performed a new grant must passe actualy to effect this right I cannot tell when the condition is to accept Christ which is present possession They cannot take Christ for justification but by virtue of this grant and when they have thus taken him and are possest of him must they have a new grant for right to him If I give a begger a gift upon condition that he will come and take it when he hath taken it and is possest of it hath he need of any further grant of right to it I said It is often tendered and justication not alwayes wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principal agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument mentioning instances that he gives and adding neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave replyes I am too shallow to reach the reason of
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
as signum voluntatis divinae being a manifestation of Gods pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner is sufficient So farre I shall willingly grant That which is to be asserted is 1. That this manifestation of Gods pleasure or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed and goes before those graces but now mentioned which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification This is plain The termes on which God will justifie must be understood before men can be brought to accept and come up to them 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made knowne and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the soul in an unjustified condition works to humiliation regeneration faith and by faith to justification 3. This manifestation of Gods pleasure being applyed to a man already humbled regenerate and in faith finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture Though Faith in nature goes before justification as the cause before the effect yet they are in that manner simul tempore that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition that so there should any intervall or time passe for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before to a regenerate believing soul serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition to make good to such a believing son or daughter that their sinnes are forgiven To apply these assertions to our present purpose This manifestation of Gods pleasure Gospel-grant or signum voluntatis divinae or whatsoever else we call it in the first consideration justifies not Going before that which is antecedent to Justification as we see it does it cannot justify In the second consideration it works indeed to justification But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter he will not accept of it for he saies he does not thus speak of it and in this consideration it justifies not without faith but works faith in order to Justification By this man is preached forgivenesse of sins and by him all that believe are justified In the third consideration it justifies not seeing it finds the work done to its hands and onely serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted So that all that can be said of this Gospel-grant donation or conveyance of right so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work is 1. To make known Gods mind on what termes justification may be attained 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it and finally to assure ratify and confirm it I shall the refore close this dispute if I may be allowed so to stile it in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place de justificat mihi pag. 797. octavo Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam Nam quotquot receperunt eum his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri Joan. 1.12 3.33 Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis 1. Docens Patefaciens Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum vel sicut veteres loquntur verbum vocale et visibile For as many as received him to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God John 1.12 and 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension speaking to mens capacity is called a cause instrumental And this instrumentall cause is twofold 1. Teaching Opening Offering and Exibiting the benefits of justification by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts And this is the Word of the Gospel and use of Sacraments or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible 2. Receiving or apprehending 2. Recipiens seu apprehendens quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur ita ut eorum participes reddamur Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem non ulias alias vel qualitates vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis whereby we apply those gifts to our selves which are offered in the Gospel that we may be made partakers of them There is therefore the hand of God as it were delivering and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered And testimonies are both observed and above explained that onely faith sand no other qualities or works in us is the medium of application SECT VI. A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith Christians must get assurance that they do act according to these principles so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles which I might urge respective to all that which is required of a man of Gospel-righteousnesse But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements I shall here onely urge it respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousnesse which is the grace of faith as we see in the Text which is confest to be the grace that receives Christ even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification If this righteousnesse which is our Justification be the righteousnesse of Faith then those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousnesse and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to those that believe those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear yet they come short of righteousnesse for life and salvation Giving assent to all Gospel-truths perhaps upon the principles of their education they may not onely have the repute but also enjoy all outward priviledges of believers yet wanting that work upon their will or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him they yet have not Christ nor life in him and therefore upon this account there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle Especially to see to their faith 2 Cor. 13.5 Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates In which words we see the Apostles exhortation and his reason annext The exhortation calls us to self-examination to a self-tryal an inquisitive experimental tryal The question to be put or thing to be proved or brought to upon
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
though the act of Justification do not work it 6. You say Faith can have no physicall causation or efficiency in Justification seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part c. 7. You say The legall formall interest or conducibility of faith towards Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense c. I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned 8. You say Scripture doth not say that you can find that faith justifies but that we are justified by faith and therefore you say you use the latter phrase rather then the former Ans This sure comes to fill up or make a number To say that we are justified by faith and not that faith justifies is a distinction without a difference We have warmth by Clothes but Clothes do not warm u◠Faith hath no lesse efficiency in Justification then in miraculous cures and yet in them faith made whole 9. You say Though ex parte Christi our severall changes proceed from his severall benefits and parts of his office exercised for us Yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one intire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the condition of our interest in Christ and his severall ben fits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the severall distinct respects that faith hath to its object c. Answ It is well that this is confessed on the part of Christ And I think you cannot shew why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship and make them known to us likewise That we should be taught in our Catechism which is so honoured with your approbation That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet in revealing to us by his word and Spirit the will of God for our Salvation That he executeth the office of a Priest in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfie divine Justice and reconcile us to God and in making continuall intercession for us That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself in ruling and defending us if our faith is not to observe which way these various priviledges accrue unto us Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them if we may not distinctly consider them Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing I think it may be proved that the Saints faith hath thus distinctly acted In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ in consideration of his soveraignty As Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 20.6 O Lord God of our Fathers art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen and in thy hands is there not power and might So that none is able to withstand thee c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself So foolish was I and ignorant I was as a beast before thee and presently addresses himself to God Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsell and bring me unto glory Psal 73.22 24. Under the burthen of sin to look to be clensed and purged To what else did the sacrifices tend and why else did David make his addresse Wash me thoroughly from my sin Deliver me from blood-guiltinesse Here I must lay down certain propositions in a more full way to explicate my self Propositions tending to explain the Authors meaning 1. That these severall functions of Christ must be distinguished but may not be divided He that is one is all Christ a Priest doth rule Christ a King doth merit and teach Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule But as a Priest he doth not rule as a King he doth not merit he is still one in all of these functions but acts under a distinct notion 2. There is a necessity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office to bring men into a Justified state and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification There must be light to lead men to Christ power to subdue men unto him as well as a price paid to reconcile them When the price of our redemtion is paid by Christ and not published it is like the hid treasure by which no man hath advantage Yea were it made known and by faith applied and brought home our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevaile against us Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Sathan When his right determines as it is with many unjust possessors he will yet keep his hold 3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship It yeelds to his soveraignty is guided by his counsell and rests in his attonement So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office at his Prophetick office as well as at his Priestly office but not as it justifies Quà teaching it looks upon him as a Prophet and learns Quà ruling it looks upon him as a King and submits to him Quà sacrificing and making atonement it looks upon him as a Priest and rests there for acquitall and discharge Where the Gospel distinguishes our faith is distinctly to act and look As to the charge laid against me I shall say little I had rather speak for truth then for my self You tell me that my expressions confound Christ and his actions with mans faith in our Justification or these two questions by what we are Justified ex parte Christi and by what we are Justified ex parte nostri For answer I only leave it to the Readers eyes whether I do not mention our faith as distinct from the blood of Christ in the words by you recited And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri The implyed sense which you accuse I shall further consider in some expresse reasons Now for your arguments we have ten in number and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question Your first concludes That Christ is not received as Christ Mr. Brs. Arguments examined if not as Lord-Redeemer which is a new phrase which I remember not that I have read before I read this Apology For Answer I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eys Redemption not Dominion Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gopel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed Your third concludes That to save from the power of sin is as true a part of a Saviours office as to save from the guilt which is not at all
worthily be rank'd in the first place amongst those that you thus honour As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith in answer to Bellarmines first question What that faith is that is required to justification he sayes in the name of Protestants (a) Hoc ipsum vel imperitè vel sophistice in quaestionem vocatur Nam 1. Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant 2. Non tam quaeritur quae aut quid fides quae justificat quam quae sit ratio quâ propriè dicitur justificare This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question giving in his reasons 1. Saith he There are many things required to justification which do not justifie 2. It is not so much enquir'd into what that faith is which do's justifie as in what notion it is that it is said to justifie And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine he saith in the same page that (b) Observandum est nos non restringere fidem illam quae justificat sed tantum quà justificat ad promissionem misericordiae Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Protestants do not restrain the faith which justifies but faith as it justifies to the promise of mercy Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure And together with it that which may be seen largely in Chemnitius enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith in his Examen Concil Trident mihi pag. 159. under this head Quid verè propriè sit fides justificans quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi quando pronunciat impium fide justificari I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good that faith in Christ quà Lord doth not justifie 1. That which the types under the Law appointed for attonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for attonement expiation and reconciliation This cannot be denied These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object being School-masters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith that serves for this work But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as Sacrificing sometimes as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it 2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto That our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat. 26.28 This is my blood in the new Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one The types of the Law and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper lead both of them to his blood for this reason of attonement and forgiveness There was an old Testament enjoyn'd of God in which the people in convenant were sprinkled with blood Exod. 24.1 c. commented upon by the Apostle Heb. 9.20 c. That blood and this cup lead to Christs blood for forgiveness and in them the death of Christ is remembred A broken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received 3. As the Spirit of God guides faith so it must go to Christ for propitiation and attonement This needs no proof The Holy Ghost is the best leader But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for attonement whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ro. 3.25 It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat We are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 And faith is our way of interest and thither the Spirit of God by the Apostle leads our faith as we see in the words mentioned I am checkt indeed by you because I say through faith in his blood not faith in his command quo jure nescio say you My reason or warranty is because I durst not adde to the Apostles directory when he leads us one way I dare look no other If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation without further direction under what notion our faith should have look'd upon him It had been enough to have said that he is our propitiation but distinctly pointing out his blood and faith in his blood I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither and only hither especially seeing I find him still in the same language Rom. 5.8 9. God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of our sins Ephes 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For as much as ye know that we were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without blemish You demand Will you exclude his obedience resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvail at the question If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but merit He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and command then I can blood and sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to rule as of blood to make attonement You yet tell me It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions and tell us of any other thing either ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further 4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by vertue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his obedience as a Servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before the Lord as righteous Rom. 15.19 By the obedience of
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not quâ— operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. qâ—à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purposâ— is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the qâ—estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to
to tell him that the Religion of the Calvinists was most near to that of Mahomet And having ended his request the said Bashaw answered I see that you Calvinists and we are like to be shortly one Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us you willl keep your selves to wine and be drunk with it Charges of this nature Lutherans and Calvinists were wont still to hear but divine providence through grace hath so ordered that these Calumnies as with a beam of the Sun have been dispelled The holy lives of those that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant reall comfutation Not to look beyond the seas where we might be furnished with severall instances let Jewel Grindall Pilkington Raynolds Fulk Whitaker Perkins Fox Greenewood Dod Hilderson Pemble Ball and many others with their Followers witnesse In so much that by degrees shame hath caused them to forbear this Language And as for those who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this supposed danger as Mountague and his followers as may be seen in his Gagg and Appeal whether their lives and zeal for the Gospel did at all outstrip those already mentioned whose supposed errors in doctrine they went about to correct I leave to all of impartiall judgement to witness How great a trouble is it then to have this by a man of your name and reputation now revived For that experience of yours of which we have already heard and you further enlarge The assertion that faith in Christ's blood is the only justifying act acquit from danger in your affirming that you never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinn'd their worst they still think to be saved because they believe and what is their believing why they believe that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation from Christ's death and Gods mercy To this I answer Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you yet here I may say my experience hath been of a longer standing then yours yet I can say it answers not that which you here mention When I have to deal with such that you name if they look out of themselves at all it is usually to Gods mercy He is say they a mercifull God and at what time soever a sinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart he is ready to receive and so relying on Gods mercy they will take their time for their return Which is answered also as is evident in the experience of others Read Practical Treatises and publish'd Sermons and see whether this plea be not commonly spoken to Ordinarily their answer is that their good doings their Prayers and Repentance must save them Few comparatively will have Christ in their mouths till he be put into their heads And if they hit upon faith as sometimes they will they yet know not how to terminate it on Christ's blood It is only a good belief that God will not deal so with them Such a faith the Plain mans path-way to heaven out of much experience of such mens answers doth notably decipher It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths viz. He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I For I accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore I am justified But in case any shall thus reason you say you are not able to answer and I shall not presume to be your teacher But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker and tell such a disputant that it is not every thing that bears the name of faith that is an acceptation of Christ to justification You may acquaint him that there is a true and sincere faith and that there is a false and counterfeit faith and that it is not enough for justification to say that a man hath faith but soundly and sincerely to believe If he say that his faith is not dissembled but sincere put him upon that which Mr. Gataker sayes is Saint James his way of tryall If he will have faith to justifie his person let works then justifie his faith There is life in that faith that takes Christ's blood for justification and that faith that hath life to take hath life also to work Where a receiving or taking faith is there Christ is and where Christ is the soul can do all things through Christ that strengthens So thaâ— if the man be such as you speak his faith is cast at the first sight and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit and is no medium to justification He may talk that Christ is his but it is clear that it is on a crackt title and his faith being no better then you say had he all the Logick in the world here he must be non pluss'd And here I would willingly learn how you will convince such a man of whom you here speak upon your own principles If he shall argue He that hath the onely justifying act of faith is justified but that have I for I take Christ as my Saviour and Soveraign Lord Ergo. Seeing there are many that profess to take Christ for a Lord as well as a Saviour that must never enter into the kingdome of heaven Mat. 7.21 If they do not spit at Christ and defie him they perswade themselves that they serve him A service of Jesus Christ with their own most favourable and easie comment upon it they doubt not will save them And I know no viler persons in the world then those that say that they love and serve Christ with all their heart and that their good works and serving of God must keep them from hell and damnation As I once heard a man stark drunk on a Lords-day profess that fall back fall edge he would never leave serving God whilst he lived These if they may be believed have as good an heart to God as he that is most precise in all the world And if they be wanting in that acuteness of Logick that you before mention they may be wel holpen out of your principles which they may find anon thus to reason He that fals short of the precepts of the Law and requisites in the Gospel may yet be justified and saved if he answers to the conditions of the Gospel-covenant But thus do I although I come not is to the precepts of the Law not to what is required in the Gospel yet I answer to the conditions of it for according to you these come short both of the commands of the Law and the precepts of the Gospell Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Gospell yet they hope they do that which will save them They have their faults they confess and who say they is free Few dayes pass over their heads but they say God
sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow theâ—efore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only Râ—le of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as thâ— Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when thâ— sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muâ—t now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who
justification and consequently with him Faith is the instrument So also Determinat 37. pag. 165. (g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris Quia constat eo modo justificari homines quo gloria divina maximè illustretur honor salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt We attribute saith he this instrumentall power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator rather then to any other act of sinning man because it is manifest that men are justified that way by which the glory of God may be most illustrated and the honour of our salvation given to God alone But they that affirm that man is justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of man's savation in justification alone to God but ascribe some part unto themselves You are highly displeased with all those that will have no other condition of our justification at the day of judgement then affiance in Christ's righteousness If you allow faith to begin it yet you will have works at any hand to perfect it Here he is as full as anywhere against you Quoting two passages out of Hilary Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon he thus expresseth himself (h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere sed non solo Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius quando dicit Sola fides justificat Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt sed non consummationem Atille longè aliter justum fides consummat Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith Faith alone justifies They attribute saith he the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation But Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion That faith in Christ as giving himself in Satisfaction for us is alone the justifying act And we shall hear how confident you are that all antiquity is against it as against the instrumentality of faith in justification and the interest of works as consummate in judgement If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat You shall see him as fully against you as Chemnitius Amesius Prideaux Bernard Anselmus or any other that you can look upon as your greatest adversaries My third argument to assert this position laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript he there makes his first which I saw not till I was come hither else I might have made other use of it And see how he expresses himself pag. 164. (i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem Vnde Aquinas In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens Deinde in mandatis comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores c. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore gratuitâ peccati remissione per propter Mediatorem in quas dum fides respicit peccator fiduciam concipit in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur Now as to that speciall proper object at which faith looks in that very instant in which it receives justification from God it is certain that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historicall narrative of creation or providence Whence Aquinas In the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon but that God be thought upon pardoning sin And in the commands and threats of the Law this speciall object is much less found For this consideration begets nothing else but terrors c. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin by and for the mediatour onely remain upon which whil'st faith looks the sinner conceives hope relies upon this mediator offered to him yields himself to divine mercy for justification and thereby attains the benefit of justification And this he backs with three Arguments You tell me Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission Giving in your reasons To which in their due place I have spoke And you may see Davenant as full against you here as any where ca. 23. de Justit habit p. 317. (k) Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis sed per modum imputationis Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith which applies to us the righteousness of Christ not that it should be made ours way of infusion or inhesion but by way of imputation And I wonder saith he that Papists cannot understand how the righteousness of Christ is applied to us by faith who think that they understand how by the Popes indulgencies the merits of Christs and the Saints are applied to the quick and dead As also chap. 28. p. 371. (l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur There is nothing more usual then to ascribe that to the cause applying which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed Therefore because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us that is attributed to faith that indeed is due to Christ Where we plainly see that according to him Faith applies the righteousness of Christ and that it is an applying cause and what cause except instrumentall I cannot imagine Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose But this is enough to let us see that there is not any so fair and full accord between you And if I should be put to name two
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
an enemy of the Churches peace that dissents in judgement from the Church in some particulars as in ages past it was or he that confessedly dissents from the Church whereof he is and where he lives and as that present it stands I think here the determination is easie Let us enquire whether of these dissents will work more heart-broyles quarrels contentions envyings mutuall oppositions and needless disputes and let that be agreed upon as well it may to bear the blame If all must be tyed up to keep peace and be at one with the Church as to all particular tenents in the revolution of all these ages they are then tyed to know and their Pastors are bound to teach what in all successive ages hath been the Churches opinion But this were a great burden for Pastors and far more intolerable to be put upon the people If a man may be secure in this that he goeth not against truth I think he need not trouble himself as to ages past in the matter of peace Had you produced the vote of Antiquity as a probable inducement to perswade that you had truth according to Scripture and reason on your part it had been somewhat such appeals to humane Authority after Divine Testimony produced is ordinary but to dissent from the Church in which a man lives and of which he is to avoid the danger of a breach of peace with the Church that sometimes was is such a way of peace that I never yet knew troden or taken 2. Whether Antiquity be as cleer for you as the Church in present is for me The latter you freely grant but the former will I think hardly be yeelded notwithstanding what you say Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 yeers therefore I am suspected as a novelist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the interest of mans obedience in his justification as continued and consummate in judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Clem. Alexand Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alaxandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any councill were of your mind in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at least my supine negligence in Reading and my very faulty Memory in retaining their words How fully you have proved the unfoundness either of the word or opinion in question others must judge But whether the novelty be so notorious as you speak is to be enquired into and in order to that I shall request you Some things propounded to the Readers consideration To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noyse and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers If the Church of Rome may be believed all Antiquity is theirs Hoping to put that cheat upon us as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel Ad patres si quando licebit accedere confectum est praelium Tam sunt omnes nostri quam Gregorius 13. Papa filiorum ecclesiae amantissimus Pater Testes fenestrae omnes res reculae It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side If we might but appeale to the Fathers saith Campian the controversie were ended They are all as fully ours saith he as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church As the windowes in the Church all other things and thinglings to take the liberty to coyne English as he doth Latine are their witnesses So all the Fathers also that the truth is with them I will say no more but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers but as an empty sound a voice and nothing more 2. That some of untainted integrity and of no lesse ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity in these controversies have asserted the full contrary to that which you here with so much confidence deliver Chemnitius was a man differing from you in every piece of this doctrine in which you dissent from me and particularly your adversary in all these three poynts in which you make this appeal to former ages He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ to be the speciall object of Justifying Faith and against your distinction of Justification begun by Faith alone and consummate by works yea there is not a man that ever wrote that appears more your adversary in this poynt then he being judged the most learned grave and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches wherewith you are most displeased in this Controversie yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent 144. After a List of authorities brought by him his close is worth observation (a) Haec pauca ideo annotavi ut ostenderem doctrinam nostram de Justificatione habere testimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus sed in seriis exercitiis poenitentiae fidei quando conscientia in tentationibus cum suâ indignitate vel coram ipso judicio Dei vel in agone mortis luctatur Hoc enim solo modo rectissimè intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione sicut in Scripturâ traditur Quaeres put concerning this Appeale These few saith he I have noted that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification is attested by all the Godly of all ages that have lived in all times and that not in their Rhetoricall declamations or vaine disputes but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation or with their own unworthinesse or before the Tribunal of God or in the Agony of death For this way saith he the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture can alone rightly be understood What can be now more contrary then his Testimony and yours how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another That which you say is a notorious novelty he saith hath the attestation of all antiquity who shall he now believe that hath not nor cannot search the Authors themselves that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years 3. I would have you to take into serious consideration these following Quaeres 1. Whether the doctrine of those that bore the name and outward face of the Church was uniforme through out that whole series of time that you take in in you◠challenge Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas and the following ages the doctrine concerning Justification in the Latine Church was the same as in the daies
of them I confess I have not seen as Polycarp Tatianus Macarius Athenagoras Vigilius as I have severall others that you mention not and I would fayne see what they have either for or against the Protestant belief Those that have not treated at all on this subject as in some of them that you name I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned or have spoken upon it only be the by are as much as nothing their names might as well have been spared as mentioned Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism in naming some of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism when they have not at all spoken to it and their contemporaries have asserted it 6. Whether the present Church of this age in which we live taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years since the Romish yoke hath been cast off be not as considerable and as much to be heeded in this controversie as all of those in your list mentioned if you should put in yet more to encrease so far as names could do it both weight and number They were subject to error and humane frailty as well as the Church that is and of late was They were not able to decide their own Controversies but laboured as well as we under contentions and divisions they were seldome unanimous but often at difference not only with others but themselves Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage 1. Being far above yours in number go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compasse of time and we shall find your List of names far exceeded 2. They have fully debated the cause and in publick Assemblies determined it in Confessions openly professed it Considered of and answered arguments against it turning over every stone to find out the truth in it so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned and Nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account nor so meet Judges in the point of Grace and Freewill having no adversary and therefore spake more loosly as Austin Prosper Fulgentius and those that followed who were by the adversary put upon the study of it Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur The greatest Doctors at some times saith Dr. Fr. White Treat of the Sabb. p. 89. before Errors and Heresies are openly defended are not neither can be so circumspect in their writing as to avoid all forms and expressions all sentences and propositions all and every tenet which in after times may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth Quoting Austin de Praed Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works which before this heresie arose had not need to busie themselves in the answer of this difficult question which doubtless they had done if they had been put to deal with such adversaries This we may fitly apply to this point of justification we are beholding the opposites of it for a more industrious fifting of it and more cleer light in it Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection had there been none in that age that had denyed it Hâ—d not Popish School-men perverted the doctrine of justification Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal and fervor of Spirit in it And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point had they seen it as we have done perverted and abused 7. If Fathers and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification How is it probable that any singularly verst in Antiquity so as to have few parallels and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification but averse from it and siding with the adversary should own the instrumentality of faith and argue for it if Antiquity were so averse from it he that takes it up is sure either ignorant in Antiquity or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party But such there have been that can neither be challenged as ignorant nor suspected for partiall engagement that yet assert the instrumentality of faith witness Bp. Montague In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective and detected by Bp. Carleton Dr. Featley and others yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication let not onely his adversaries speak that have appeared against him but Sanct. Clara our adversary who Problem 26. quotes Montagues Appeal Chap. 6. to prove the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent agreeable as he sayes with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent Now that this great Antiquary and friend of our adversaries appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification see his Appeal cap. 9. part 2. putting it into his title that God doth justifie originally and faith instrumentall and reasoneth for it in the Chapter it self These things being prâ—mised as to the first concerning the Instrumentality of Faith Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith I thus argue They that are for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all whatsoever else in man they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all in man except faith in this work Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification Here the Proposition is first to be proved and then the Assumption The Proposition I â—hus prove To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith which is not found in any other grace this none can deny and you confess pag. 96. of your Confession Conclus 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work distinct from other graces but to be an instrument in this work This is cleer This peculiar work or office of faith must be either to be an instrument in this work or else a Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non or else somewhat more noble then all of these as the formal meritorious cause c. But it s peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification Though they be all present together saith our Book of homilies yet they do not justifie together pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies saith Davenant he infuses inhaerent grace which yet he denies to be any cause but an Appendix to our justification de Justit habit cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine sayes That Protestants agree in this
that good work are not necessary to Salvation but onely by a necessity of presence lib. 4. de justit cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants then acknowledge and he intends justification as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand Here then is nothing peculiar to faith to be meerly conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non Nâ—ither can we ascribe any more noble causality as to be a formall or meritorious cause as needs not to be proved The asserting of justification by faith therefore denotes that which we make an instrument in justification Now that the Antients assert that we are justified alone by faith putting in that exclusive particle that Papists are wont to say is not in Scriptures nor Fathers may be made good 1. By manifold authorities asserting it 2. By multitude of quotations Our Book of Homilies having quoted severall Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone addes And after this-wise to be justified onely by this true and lively faith in Christ speaketh all the old and Antient Authors both Greek and Latine Ser. of Salvation par 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word onely into the Text in Rom. 3.28 Fulk replies You were best to charge all the Antient Fathers which use this term of whom we have received it to be Foysters and excluders of the Sacraments and good works The particle alone by faith in the article of justification was not first devised by us saith Chemnitius but was alwayes used with great consent in all Antiquity as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate which sentences of the Fathers saith he are gathered by Robert Barnes Aepinus Bullinger Otho Corberus c. Loc. de justif pag. 772. Octavo And Chamier Panstrat Cathol Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture that faith alone justifieth concludes so the Scripture is cleer with us The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me before I examine the exceptions of adversaries The induction of quotations yet remaines and I had it in my thoughts to have set down the words themselves which for the most part are very express but I find that that would be tedious to my self and wearisome to the Reader and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not I shall content my self therefore to poynt out the Authors quoting them and the places quoted Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon 45. if it be Ambroses is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned who sayes that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle onely fifteen times By Eckhardus Compend Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato Hilary lib 6. de Trinit Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28 Chamier ibid. Davenant and Prideaux lect 5. Hieron in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus and Chamier ibid. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side lege naturae is quoted by Chamier Eckhardus Fulk Davenant de Justit habit cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil 51. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier Davenant ibid. Nazianzen Orat. 22.26 is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes 2. is quoted by Eckhardus as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist 27. is quoted by Chamier Eckhardut Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Victor Mar. lib. 3. in Gens is quoted by Eckhard Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper Aquitan Epigram 9. are quoted by Chamier Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk Beda in Psal 77. pag. 71. by Davenant and Bp Vsher de statu success Eccles cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss Ordinaria in Epist Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos Symboli Epiphanius in Ancor Phylast in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres lib. 4. Haeres 5. Maxentius de fide are quoted by Eckhardus And because Papists say that Austin uses not this exclusive particle onely therefore Chemnitius tells us that it is used by him in Serm. Quadrages as also in his exposition of these words Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan Contra duas Epistol Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini Chamier addes In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest 76. Exposit in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony that I have mentioned under his name addes we may then truly say with Erasmus that this word sole which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther is reverently read and heard in the Fathers So that we see a peculiar interest that faith hath in justification which belongs to no other grace And therefore it is no wonder that you who forsake all the reformed Churches that unanimously make it an instrument in justification are at such a stand as you are in Conclus 29. and 30. of your Confession what office in justification to assign to it you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality in this work between saith and obedience which is no marvail seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference and Faiths peculiar office which is the instrumentall interesting us in Christ by way of acceptation or apprehension as Isychius in the place quoted saith Sola fide apprehenditur non ex operibus The grace viz. of justification is apprehended by faith and not by works which is as plain a testimony as may be for the instrumentality of this grace Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies Objecting that the Antients used that particle sole otherwise then we do and returns his answer 1. That they use the word sole or alone to exclude all other sects intending no more but that it is alone the Christian Faith and not the Jewish or Turkish that leads to Justification and Salvation And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega Pag. 191. with no other approbation but that it is sometimes true and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it making it appear that when the Fathers speak of the application apprehension or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith they still
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris
sed in advocati nostri allegatione confidamus And this I am sure is within Christs Priestly and not his Kingly office That of Bernard also super Cantic Sâ—ct 23. Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium cui soli peccavi Sect. 23. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deest usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini quoniam Misericordiâ affluunt nec desunt foramina per quae affluant Memor abor justitiae tuae solius ipsa enim est mea nempe factus es mihi tu Justitia à Deo Nunquid mihi verendum est ne non una ambobus sufficiat Non est pallium breve quod secundum prophetam non potest operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum te pariter me apperiet larga aeterna justitia That of Austine lib. 3. de Trinit Cap. 20. Fides ad beatitudinem necessaria in Christo definita est qâ—i in carne resurrexit à mortuis non enim nisi per illum liberabitur quisquam à Diaboli dominatu per remissionem peccatorum And Nyssenus lib. de vita Mosis Caput eorum quae in professione Christiana credimus est firmâ rectaque fide in passionem illius respicere qui pro nobis passus est That passage which Chemnitius quotes out of the life of Bernard is observeable Being at the poynt of death and in an extasie of Spirit judging himself to be before Gods tribunall and Sathan over against him present charging him with wicked accusations and the Man of God was to speak for himself not at all afraid or troubled he said Fateor non sum dignus ego nec propriis possum meritis regnum obtinere coelorum Caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens dominus meus haereditate scilicet patris merito passionis altero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat Ex cujus dono jure illud mihi vendicans non confundor Ita hoc verbo confusus est inimicus c. The same Author tels us of an exhortation of Anselme to a dying Brother set out as a directory for the visit of the sick ready to give up the Ghost which is almost wholly spent in leading the dying person to the death of Christ He concludes Age ergo dum in te est anima tua ei semper gratias in hac sola morte totam fiduciam tuam constitue Huic morti te totum committes hac morte te totum contâ—ge eique te totum evolve Et si dominus te voluerit judicare dic Domine Domini mortem nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me te judicium tuum aliter tecum non contendo si dixerit quod merueris damnationem dic Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque dignissimae passionis meritum affero pro merito quod ego habere debuissem heu non habeo Many more passages may be found in Chemnitius out of Anselme Gerson Bernard and others purposely brought to make this good that the speciall promises of mercy in Christ through his blood is the speciall object of Faith in Justification largely disclaming any act of Faith as terminated on any other object in the word to Justifie I shall conclude with that which was quoted before by Davenant out of Thomas Aquinas In ipsa Justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli Sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens In this work it self of the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought up but that God be thought on pardoning sin As for your last of the interest in mans obedience in Justification as continued and consummate in judgment In case you could bring forth the distinction out of the Fathers and make it appear that thy exclude all in man except Faith in Justification begun but take in works in Justification compleat and consummate you had done somewhat But to put your adversaries upon it to prove that the Fathers overthrow this distinction when you do not shew that they any where assert it is scarce equall dealing yet you cannot here go away cleare What judge you of the passages but now quoted If Bernard had been of your judgement when he took himself to be before Gods tribunal he would not have contented himself alone with the sufferings of Christ but must have put himself upon it to have brought out a list as large as the Pharisees of his works of obedience Neither would Anselme in his Directory have taught Prelates and other Ministers to have led persons at the point of death alone to the death of Christ and nothing else What say you to that of Clemens Alexand. Stromat 7 quoted by Eckhardus pag. 391. Per fidem solummodo efficitur fidelis perfectus And that of Hilary quoted by Davenant de Justitia habit cap. 29 pag. 377 having urged these words out of Canon 8. in Matth. pag. 164. A christo remissum est quod lex laxure non poterat fides enim sola justificat he addes another quotation out of lib. 20. de Trinitate Justum fides consummat secundum quod dictum est credidit Abraham deo reputatum est ei ad justitiam and then Comments himself upon both these quotations Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith faith alone justifies for they attribute the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation but Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just So that your Reader may see that Hilary in Davenants judgement is full against you And doubtless he will still judge it matter of wonder that in the close of your Century of witnesses you say that Davenant most fully of all speaks your thoughts If he agree with you no man no not Mr. Crandon himself I think dissents from you I confess that I come neerer to you than he as in words he expresses himself as you may see at large de Justit habit cap. 30. pag. 397 398. and yet I cannot be brought to agree with you And seeing I am brought in by you in your confession pag. 456. as the first man after you Century of witnesses is ended as voting with you in these words Mr. Bl. in his late Treatise of the Covenant is so full in asserting the conditionality of repentance and obedience that he spends whole Chapters upon it and answers the objections of the Antinomians against it cap. 14. and 15 and 6 7 8. I am put to it to let the Reader know how I explain my self seeing you do it not By which it will appear that nothing that I have said in any of those Chapters by you quoted notwithstanding I assert such conditionality as you mention will serve at all to strengthen your opinion for the interest of works in justification yet for ought I know they may be as
much for you as the most of those that are by you produced You may see that I distinguish of conditions serviceable to man in his return to God 1. For recovery of his lost estate of happiness 2. For the repair or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately serviceable for mans return to God reconciled in Christ I say is Faith in the page quoted The condition respecting mans reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God I say is Repentance cap. 14. pag. 93. This then with me enters not the act of justification but is the justified mans way to bliss and glory And when Repentance is at the highest and obedience at the best it is not repentance nor obedience but the bloud of Christ in which faith alone interests us that must be our discharge So that if I may take the boldness to interpose my thoughts as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced for the interest of works in justification I think for the greatest part they labour of that Fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Put them into Syllogistical form and the Reader shall find that they do not conclude the thing in question They very fully speak a necessity of good works to Salvation which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers and the question is about their interest in Justification Which two in the judgement of Protestant writers very much differ as you may see in Mr. Ball Treatise of the Covenant pag. 18. Whose testimony I have produced at large p. 434. c. and thither I here refer you Where you may see the sole interest of faith the instrumentall efficiency or causality of it with an utter deniall of any interest of works in this of justification So that he alone may speak for all that the acknowledgement of the interest of works according to the tenor of the Covenant as a way appointed of God for attainment of glory doth not argue any interest at all of works in the work of justification But to return to that from which these quotations have caused this short digression I think you might have spared those words If I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. yeers then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned Unless you could make it better appear that Christ and his Apostles and the Church for this space of time were more cleerly for you It is the Churches Testimony that is now our business and if the Reader have no more then Chemnitius bare word affirming with so much confidence as we have heard that all ages have been against you it is enough against your bare word that all former ages have been for you You now see my thoughts how they stand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology in which I am concerned Though it be above my hopes to give you satisfaction yet others I doubt not wil be more flexible in their opinion What you wil please to do further I know not it is enough that I understand my own mind which is so far as I can before-hand resolve not to intermeddle further and whatsoever I shall hear from you to impose silence on my self You have drawn me out to speak what is here said in my own just defence If this will not do it I shall think it will not be done Let me request that Christian Candor that the Common cause may not suffer and that you will not dwell on literall mistakes or unaptness as you may conceive sometimes of the phrase but take that which you shall judge to be my full meaning which I have made my business as fully as I can to make known I have no more to make yours or the Readers trouble but shall leave all to your candid interpretation and his impartiall censure and not onely subscribe but with unfeigned resolution by the help of grace remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces Your true affectionated Friend Brother and fellow labourer THOMAS BLAKE An Alphabeticall Table relating to the chief heads handled in this Treatise A. Abraham WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page 24 The question discussed in severall propositions Ibid. c. Acts Of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page 451 Actions Are denominated good or evill from the Law onely Page 613 Adam Was not Created an infant in understanding Page 15 Admission Of men of yeers to Baptisme examined Page 101 The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid. Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page 102 Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Admission to the Lords Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page 273. c. Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicite in the Old Testament Page 92 Antiquity Who they be that make the highest claimes to it as being on their party Page 652 Chemnitius his thoughts of the judgement of Antiquity concerning the Protestants doctrine of iustification Page 65â— 653 Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity in point of Controversie Page 653 c. Proofs from Antiquity for the instrumentality faith Page 628 c. Evasions of these testimonies examined Page 661 Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act Page 633 Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of mans obedience in justification as consummate Page 665 Apostates Application of the Seales of the Covenant to them is a putting a Seale to a blank Page 20 Assent Essentiall in Faith Page 502 It must be firm Page 503 Vnlimitted ibid. Assurance Of faith is possible Page 496 What sins cloud it Page 394 Astrology Judiciall Astrology censured Page 39 c. Arminianisme The Author vindicated from it Page 158 c. B. Mr. Ball. HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 434 That works do not justifie ibid. That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib. That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page 435 No condition of justification Page 436 Baptisme Johns Baptisme in the whole of it of divine institution Page 436 Contempt and neglect of Baptisme censured Page 68 An emprovement is to be made of it Page 72 The sin of Covenant Parents destroyes not the Child 's right to Baptisme Page 97 Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptisme Page 104. 110 How far Faith and Repentance antiently were required in Baptisme Page 109 Their grounds or reasons who delayed Baptisme in the Primitive times Page 110 Their way of admission of the Catechumeni to Baptisme
Page 111 Over much rigour in admission to Baptisme hinders the progress of the Gospell Page 112 The admission of some to Baptisme in prudence may be delayed Page 113 Papists expect not grace for but a convenient disposition to grace in the person to be Baptized Page 111 The restraint of right to Baptisme a breach in the Church of Christ Page 181 Baptisme a leading Church-privilege Page 161 In what sense Baptisme works what it figures Page 383 Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The Bloud and Spirit of Christ are not alwayes applyed in it Page 381 Dangers attending the restraint of Baptisme to the regenerate Page 551 Baptized A man unbaptized is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page 144 The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid. Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were alwayes answered with inherent grace Page 149 Vpon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page 160 c. Believers A title in Scripture not proper to the justifyed Believing What ordinarily meant by believing in the History of the Acts. Page 177 The distinction of believing Christ and believing in Christ groundless ibid. Bloud Faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 766 This assertion quit from danger Page 582 Bloud and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 C. Call AN outward call asserted Page 169 Calvin Vindicated Page 118. 550 Catholick And universall in Authors use of them distinguished Page 155 Chemnitins His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page 490 See Antiquity Christ The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 Whether the Covenant of works be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Faith in his bloud onely justifies Page 566 Faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page 562 Interest in him interests us in all other privileges Page 458 Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not of the Species of Christ onely Page 459 The healing of our nature and the removall of our guilt is his work Page 366 Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted it 's instrumentality in justification cannot be denyed Page 441 Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448. 449 Christians Vnregenerates are reall and not equivocall members of visible Churches Page 153 Humane authority vouched for it ibid. c. Christian a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page 149 Church-Membership What gives right to it Page 201 102 Circumcision How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions for clearing of the truth Page 24 Circumcision and Baptisme engaged to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The right of Circumcision implyed the propagation of corruption Page 368 Circumcision was no earnall badge Page 425 Cloud Whether two or onely one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 No ordinary one but supernaturall Page 522 The motion of it guided by an Angell ibid. The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib. The use of it twofold As Israels guide Page 522 As Israels guard ibid. It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Communicants The Lords Supper must be administred for their edification Page 199 Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448 Conclusions Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page 579 Condition The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the essence and being of Baptisme Page 143 44 The Authors meaning cleered Page 145 In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page 171 Actuall existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page 462 One and the same thing is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page 632 Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptisme Page 528 Perfects what Baptisme begins ibid. The matter of it Page 529 The form Page 529 The fruit Minister Ceremonies at consecration at administration Page 529 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 530 The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of it Page 530 The ancient use of it degenerated Page 531 Consecration Respects not elements but participants Page 58 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium or Concionatorium ibid. Contradiction The Author acquit from any Page 447 Conversion The Lords Supper with the word as an Appendant to it may be serviceable towards Conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 201 c. Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a Converting Ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page 217 Covenant Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Keeping Covenant failing in Covenant and forfeiture of it to be distinguished Page 392 The Covenant falling Sacraments annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Where God denies his Covenant there the seal must not be granted Page 20 The Covenant people of God the adaequate subject of Sacraments Page 74 All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid. Interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page 79 The word Covenant asserted ibid. The thing it self asserted Page 80 in the essentials of it Page 80 81 in the solemnities Page 81 Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page 82 Covenant and seal are commensurate Page 120 Covenant outward and inward This distinction examined Page 83 The Author vindicated in it Page 124 The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page 83 c. To it belongs the definition of a Covenant ibid. It usually bears the name in Scripture Page 84 Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant Page 86 Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page 115 Covenant God Gods Covenant with his people not equivocall Page 80 Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page 128 Covenant of works Passe between God and man in an immediate way without any reference to Christ as Mediatour Page 10 11 Whether this Covenant be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Covenant of Grace Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page 414 Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page 641 643 It requires and accepts sincerity Page 637 Arguments evincing it vindicated Page 639 Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page 645 Covenant absolute Conditionall Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page 626 Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Covenant Old and New Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the
same Page 25 Disciple D. A Title in Scripture not alwayes proper to the justified Page 149 Discipline Church-discipline asserted Page 266 c. Objections answered Page 268 Dogmaticall Faith Is a true Faith Page 176 Entitles to Baptisme Page 103 The Authors Arguments proving That a Dogmaticall Faith or a Faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme uindicated Page 120 121 c 17. Arguments added for the proof of it Page 161 Arguments from humane authorities against a Dogmaticall Faith examined Page 147 Dogs Dogs and Swine what they mean Page 260 E. Eldership ALlegations for the power of an Eldership in admission to the Sacrament Page 252 These taken into consideration Page 253 Ruling Elders uindicated Page 270 c. Grotius his testimony concerning them Page 171 Election And the Couenant of grace not commensurate Page 124 Elect. Restriction of the Couenant to the the Elect regenerate confounds the Couenant the and conditions of it Page 134 Exceptions against it answsred Page 135 136 Restraint of Couenant to the regenerate denies any breach of Couenaut Page 138 Exception against it examined ibid c. Elements No continuall holiness in Sacramentall Elements Page 324 Their touch or abode makes not holy Page 325 Engagement Answer to Sacramentall engagements necessary to Saluation Page 387 Arguments euincing it Page 389 Sacraments without spirituall profit to those that liued in breach of Couenant Page 18 Sacraments are meer shadowes and empty signes where conscience answers not to the engagements Page 389 c. Sacraments are aggrauations of sin and hightnings of judgements when conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements Page 390 When conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation Page 391 When it is that conscience answers to Sacramentall engagements Page 392 Equivocall Men of a uisible profession really and not equiuocally in Couenant with God Page 128 Gods Couenant with his people no equiuocall Couenant Page 80 Scripture language not equiuocall Page 140. 150 Equivocation What it is Page 139 Errors Reformers uindicated from a charge of four supposed great errors Page 438 Protestants uindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 Erroneous Persons in an incapacity to receive any benefit from the Lords Supper Page 236 c. Evidence Men in grace often want assuring evidence of grace Page 190 Grounds laid down Page 190 191 c Eunuch His Baptism enquired into Page 176 F. Faith THe alone grace that interests us in the righteousness of the Covenant Page 432 All forein reformers make not faith a full persuasion Page 439 c. Whether the act or habit of faith doth justifie Page 442 These phrases to be justified by faith and faith justifies are one and the same Page 444 Faiths instrumentality in justification asserted by Scriptures ibid. The unanimous consent of Protestant writers in it Page 445 c. There is somewhat of efficiency in mans faith for justification Page 447 How Christ dwels in our hearts by faith Page 450 Faith doth more then qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified Page 460 More then a bare presence of faith is required to justification Page 468 In what sense the Gospell through faith is efficacious for justification Page 481 Christians must bring their faith to triall Page 492 The absolute necessity of faith ibid. Manifold benefits of it Page 494. c. The humbled soul the proper seat of faith Page 498 c. Faith hath its seat in the will as well as in the understanding Page 504 It is hold out in words in Scripture implying affiance trust c. ibid. Faith defined Page 505 Faith far under-values all earthly things respective to Christ Page 510 Faith is against all whatsoever is against Christ Page 512 It suffers no lust to divide from Christ ibid. Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The distinction of fides quae and fides quâ asserted Page 565 566 Protestant writers guilty of no cheat in it ibid. Arguments evincing that faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 566. c. Faith dogmaticall See dogmaticall Faith justifying See justification Faiths instrumentality See instrument Fathers And Councils often too rigorous in their Rules respective to Church discipline Page 112 Queres put touching the authority of the Fathers in Controversies Page 653 c. Mr. Firmin His Appendix as to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme examined Page 94 c. The Authhor vindicated Page 95 96 His Appendix as to admission of men of yeers examined Page 104 c. Advertisments given to Mr. Br. touching his undertakings for him Page 180 Their disagreement Page 180 c. Food Ordinary and quickening food differenced Page 218 The word as well as the Sacrament is food ibid. Forum Dei Mr. Brs. distinction of Forum Dei and Forum Ecclesiae examined Page 141 Form A precise form of words not of the essence of Sacraments Page 59 G. Gesture NO one Gesture of necessary observation in receiving of the Sacrament Page 310 God His great goodness in condescension to mans weakness in institution of Sacraments Page 52 c. He is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramentall rites Page 63 He is to prescribe in his own worship Page 65 He alone must distinguish his servants in relation from others Page 65 66 He onely gives efficacy to Sacraments Page 66 He onely can seale his promise Page 66 67 His great goodness and the tender care of Christ in condescension to our weakness Page 349 His compassion to us should move us to compassionate our selves Page 551 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his Priestly Office Page 567 Grace Papists speak doubtfully of any work of inherent grace infused in Baptisme Page 377 Protestants deny any such infusion of grace in Baptisme Page 378 The Fathers acknowledge no such infusion of grace in Baptisme ibid. Common grace is reall Page 132 H. Heresie IN the Parent divests not the Child from Church-privileges Page 99 Holiness Covenant-holiness must not be confounded with inward holiness Page 148 149 The doctrine of Covenant-holiness more antient then Zuinglius Page 117 Calvin and Beza not the inventers though the promoters of it Page 118 Mr. Humphreys His Treatise of a free admission to the Lords Supper Page 247 I. NAtural Idiots uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 Ignorance Ignorant In Covenant Parents divests not the Child of Church-privileges Page 99 Grossely ignorant ones in an incapacity of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 230 Ignorance distinguished ibid. Image An Image less like the Pattern is an Image Page 612 Impenitence And unbelief in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of grace Page 622 Arguments evincing it Page 624 c. Infants Of confederate Parents put no bar to their Baptisme Page 95 They are uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 226 The different practice of Antiquity ibid. Schoolemen divided about it ibid. The present practice of the Church of
Rome in it Page 227 Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith and how before circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions laid down Page 29 c. Infant-Baptisme Severall benefits of it Page 185 c. See Baptisme Infirmities Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page 392 Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid. Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page 393 Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid. See Sin Institution A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page 58 Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly usefull Page 59 All Sacramentall rites must be of divine institution Instrument Faith The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page 437 Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith as in other actions so in justification Page 444 Whether the action of the principall cause and of the instrument in Morall operations is alwayes one Page 445 The unanimous consent of Protestant writers that Faith is an instrument ibid. c. Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page 438. 464 Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page 441 Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ Page 443 Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished Page 448 Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page 460 It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page 448. 487 The grant of the New Covenant is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page 466 Concauses instrumentall have efficacy one from another Page 470 Instruments Cooperative or Passive Page 474 Whether the word be a passive instrument or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid. An instrumentall effiâ—iency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page 486 Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 485 Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page 628 c. See Faith Justification The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a reall Page 447 God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page 449 In justification of man God acts not without man Page 446 Quaeres put in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumentall in the work of justification Page 478 Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page 489 Justification by Gospell grant and by the sentence of the Judge how they differ Page 556 557 Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse Page 558 The Father appoints the termes of justification and salvation Page 559 Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page 576 Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme Page 163 c. Severall arguments vindicated Page 120 c. Exceptions examined Page 143 Additionall arguments to prove it Page 161 Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page 135 136 None able to Baptize if justifying faith onely give admission Page 160 Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Objections answered Page 262 K. Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page 500 Knowledge distinguished Page 501 See Ignorance L. Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Law Morall Arminians Socinians and Papists oppose the perfection of the Morall Law Page 601 Authorities of Protestant writers for the perfection of the Morall Law Page 602 Arguments evincing the perfection of the Morall Law Page 603 Objections answered Page 605 There is no sin that is not condemned in the Morall Law Page 603 In what sense the preceptive part of the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page 605 c. Actions are denominated good or bad from the Law onely Page 613 Men are denominated really and not equivocally righteous that imperfectly obey the Morall Law Page 614 The Law commanding duty and the end of the duty are not opposite but subordinate Page 614 Law nature What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page 24 No Sacraments appointed of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. Scripture silence a probable argument Page 26 Jesuites arguments herein examined ibid. The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and as used by Christ whether they differ Page 600 Leiturgy Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page 308 Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. c. 1. As to the work it self Page 308 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page 309 Life What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page 11 Not barely an animall life ibid. c. The tree of life had not any naturall power to answer its name Page 12 Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The position at large discussed Page 555 c. Lords Supper See Sacraments Supper Lunatick Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 M. Man His first originall is in sin Page 363 Arguments evincing it Page 364 In mans restitution his nature must be healed and his guilt removed Page 366 The healing of his nature and the removall of guilt is the work of Christ Page 366 Manna Whence it hath its name Page 523 The time it continued with Israel Page 524 Miraculously provided ibid. A fable concerning it ibid. Of a Sacramentall nature Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Meanes Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page 17 Objections answered Page 17 18 Mediatour See Christ Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page 572 Marriage The Matter Page 540 Form Page 540 Minister Page 540 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 541 Minister Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page 251 Inconveniences objected against it answered Page 262 A Ministers prudence in this work to see with more eyes then his own Page 272 Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid. To make scrutiny into mens knowledge with all tenderness Page 273 Not to refuse but upon known crimes ibid. When he cannot in this do what he would he is to do what he is able Page 274 Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministeriall function Page 277 Whether Ministeriall dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page 277 c. Gospell order transgrest when Sacraments are not dispenced by a Ministeriall hand Page 278 Doctor Abbots and Mr. Hookers judgement in it ibid. Mixt. Lawfull to communicate in mixt congregations Page 314 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Morall Perfection or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page 592 Duties naturally Morall bind all Page 195 Where a positive command is given there is a Morall tye to obedience ibid See Law
by his people on earth Concerning which I shall deliver my thoughts in several propositions God had his Church and people in that juncture of time First That God had his Church and People with a way of worship pleasing to and accepted by himself in those times This evidently appears out of the History Abell Henoch Noah Melchizedeck who without all doubt lived in those times and Job as it is commonly received spake so much and the Apostles Comment or observation of those times Heb. 11. makes it more evident Abell offered to God a more excellent gift then Cain and obtained witnesse that he was righteous Heb. 11.4 They both made Visible profession of the same God and both sacrificed to God and God put a difference between their gifts An embleme of the Church in all succeeding ages which is that great house where are vessels of honour and dishonour By faith Henoch was translated that he should not see death and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God Heb. 11.5 and as he affirms that it was by faith that be was thus translated so he proves it he had this testimony that he pleased God But without faith it is impossiblc to please him vers 6. Noah became heir of the righteousnesse by faith vers 7. God had his worship then as appears by Abells and Noahs sacrifice and in Melchizedeks function Gen. 14.18 Who was a Priest of the most high God taken from among men and ordained for men in things appertaining to God that he might both offer gifts and sacrifices Heb. 5.1 The Woman had all that time her seed and the Serpent his who kept up their mutuall enmity as Cain and Abell Noah and the men of the world Lot and the men of Sodom do give witness God had a people of Covenant-holiness those Sons of God that saw thc daughters of men that they were fair and took of them wives of all which they chose Gen. 6.1 He had a people truly holy Lot had that Epithete of just 2 Pet. 2.7 the name of a righteous man Noah had that witness of God that he saw him righteous Gen. 7.1 and of Abel the Apostle saitb that his works were righteous Secondly Scripture makes no mention of any Sacraments of Sacramental signs in that â—ime We read not of any Sacrament appointed of God for these times nor of any Divine Ordinance or sign that comes up to the nature of a Sacrament Those that may be instanced in with most colour are 1. That of sacrifice both before and after the floud and that of the Rain-bow immediately upon the floud That of sacrifice comes more near up to the nature of a Sacrament then that of the Bowe But how both come short of the nature of a Sacrament in the sense generally received and now to be spoken to I shall God willing in a more fit place make known Thirdly Sacraments in substance of the same naâ—ure with the Covenant If there were any Sacraments in those dayes appointed of God for his people in Covenant they must be of the same nature as to the substance of them and thing signified by them with those under the Law and now in the dayes of the Gospel There was one common salvation ours and theirs one and the same Saviour theirs and ours we and they were under the same promises Their Sacraments then must seal these promises Noah was an heir of righteousness of faith These supposed Sacraments could then signe and seal no other thing then that righteousness Fourthly Though we do not rest upon that argument à non dici ad non esse Scripture silence a most probable argument that in those times there was no Sacrament because we read of no Sacarments in those dayes to conclude that there was none then appointed or in use yet we may conclude that it is an high presumption in any in this last age of the world to undertake to assert any Sacraments in those times This were indeed contrary to that which the Apostle warns to presume above that which was written 1 Cor. 4.6 Where Scripture is silent how dare we speak Scripture silence affords an argument of far greater probability for the negative that in those times there was no Sacrament in use then all the imaginary conceits which men can invent or find For the affirmative that there were Sacraments then appointed The old Rabbines had their traditions concerning Gods transactions with his people in that age Weemse in his Divine exercitations Exer. 16. pag. 61. tells us that the Hebrews say that before the Law was written God gave to Moses seven Precepts which he delivered by tradition to his posterity after him These they call the traditions of their fathers which he there reckons up but not any one concerning Sacraments It is then sure a vain labour for us at such a distance to have any thoughts of finding them out Many Jesuites bestirre their wits to conclude Sacraments in those times To save labour of further search for that which is of no greater necessity the Reader may find much of what they have said in Chamier de Sacramentis in genere lib. 1. cap. 8. which Chapter he entitles De Sacramentis in lege naturae Suavez will by all means conclude that there was then some Sacrament for the remedy of Original sin grounding himself on this which he puts into his margin Pag. 40. Colume 2. b Divinae providentiae est omni aetati providere That Divine providence is to take care of all ages taking it fot granted that providence is defective if a standing Sacrament in any age of the Church be wanting and that there is no way in Divine providence to save an infant from Original sin but the actual application of a Sacramental sign Election cannot obtain it nor Regeneration nor Justification by the Spirit and blood of Christ effect it without a Sacrament to make application of it The Jesuit might know and if Divines on our part might be heard they would make known that Sacraments are not the remedy against Original sin but Christ and the righteousness of faith in Christ which is the thing signified and sealed in the Sacrament and the people of God enjoying means in those times to attaine this righteousness Heb. 11.7 they were not without a remedy Himself ingenuously confesses there is nothing in Scripture respective to those times nor in tradition of any such Sacramental remedy nor do any of the Fathers as he saith mention it before Austin And Austin as he also acknowledges speaks of it doubtingly what he speaks by way of conjecture is not consistent as he observes with his own doctrine elsewhere In which the modesty of that Father is farre to be preferred before the Jesuites boldness in it who concludes there was such a Sacramental remedy though not instituted of God but left to the Parents liberty
to make use of some one according to their own will when this assertion of his is as inconsistent with his own doctrine as Austins can be that upon a manifold account as might be shewen 1. He scarce knowes how to make it out that Circumcision was any remedy at all against Original sin seeing that Sacrament did not conferre grace by the work done but by the merit or disposition of the doer which is not found in infants 2. He himself confesses that many infants dye in their mothers wombe and yet have no remedy provided either in the law of nature or the old Law or Law of grace that is neither before the Law under the Law or in Gospel-times 3. Water is not alwayes at hand as he not absurdly hints though a Minister with them is scarce wanting who set up Midwives for the work and then the infant dyes remedilesse All this he thinks to help with a distinction c Quanquam enim non de singulis in particulari provideret ut eis efficaciter applicaretur romedium generaliter omnibus provisum tamen quantum in ipso est omnibus providet Though saith he God hath not provided for each one in particular that the remedy provided in general for all should be applyed to them yet he hath provided such a remedy as far as in him lyes But foreseeing that there would be some impediment to hinder the application of this Sacramental remedy to some this he permits This is a speech beseeming a Jesuit that God provided quantum in se a remedy as though it had been above him to have avoyded these impediments If the Jesuites position must stand that God is so tyed up with these limits that he cannot take away Original sin from infants without application of somewhat that is sensible He could have made such provision as he forbade Sampsons mother whilest with child the drinking of wine or strong drink or eating any unclean thing and that respective to the infant because he should be a Nazarite to God from the wombe to the day of his death Judg. 13.7 so he could have enjoyned the mother to have taken that which might through grace annext have had that efficacy in the infant in the wombe to take away Original sin as they conceive water hath on an infant new-born yea God is so far from doing what in him lyes respective to many infants for provision of a remedy of this nature that he orders that such a supposed remedy shall not be applyed He with much ado makes Circumcision a remedy to deliver from Original sin Pag. 51. Yet God took order in his Law that it should not be administred before the eighth day and in that interim between the birth and the eighth day it must needs be that many dyed and so by the law of Heaven they were debarred of a remedy through grace provided But here he is opposed by divers of his own party who hold that the faith of the Parent is sufficient to take away Original sin from the infant for which opinion he quotes Bonaventure Dist 1. Art 2. Quest 2. Rich. art 1. 5. 9. 1. 2. And Chamier lib. 1. cap. 8. de Sacramentis in genere Sect. 6. quotes also Vasquez for the same opinion These place merit in the Parents faith to work to the justification of the infant a merit not ex condiguo but ex congruo and for merit of this nature a faith informed void of Charity is sufficient say they Here our Author takes two exceptions against his friends 1. saith he d Sed hi authores in hoc falsum supponunt quia revera ad meritum de congruo non sufficit fides informis praesertim ad merendam alteri gratiam sanctitatem praeterea non satis explicant vim radicem hujus remedii quia ut esset infallibile quod necessarium est ut esset verum remedium non satis erat meritum de congruo quia non semper infallibiliter effectum habet sed necessaria erat divina promiscio hanc oportet ostendere They argue from a false ground for faith informed will not serve for this kind of merits especially to merit grace for another And secondly they do not as he saith sufficiently set forth the force and efficacy of this remedy To make it infallible as it must be if it be a true remedy merit de congruo is not sufficient seeing it hath not alwayes infallibly its effects But a Divine promise is necessary and this promise saith he they ought to shew that maintain it So that one part gives too much to the application of a sensible sign to the infant and the other over much to the merit of the Parent Abuleusis on Matth. 25. Quest 677. comes nearer to Bonaventure Richard Vasquez then to Suarez holding that infants before Circumcision were delivered from Original sin in that they were born of believers not requiring as Rivet observes Exer. 88. in Genes any application of faith in the Parents to the infants in any Sacrament for that work who might be dead before the Sacrament was administred to them The same opinion is undertaken of late in behalf of the infants of Christians to prove the infallibility of their salvation whether dying before or after Baptisme I have enough on my hands already and am not willing to launch out into this controversie I onely say 1. I find infants of believers not onely of the faith of the Elect but of visible profession in Covenant the Scripture is cleare for a Covenant in this latitude 2. That salvation according to Scripture wayes is within the verge of the Covenant and doth not go beyond it The Scripture leaves men out of Covenant in an hopeless condition 3. As there is salvation for all sorts and degrees of persons of age in Covenant but not to be extended to all of those sorts and degrees to reach every individual person so in a parallell way we may think of infants I know no text giving us universal assurance of their happiness in case there were I suppose there were much mare cause for believers to begge of God their infants death then with David in prayer to seek their life there being full assurance of their happiness dying and so much fear of their condemnation living to see the temptations to which in their growth they are subject We find salvation entailed upon qualifications of grace but not upon any age or period of life 4. There is as much found in Scripture giving us hopes of the salvation of the infants of all in Covenant as to their infant-state as to the infants of those that are most exact in keeping of Covenant As much is said for the honour of infants of Parents of a faith barely dogmatical as of the infants of those that are actually in grace and justified by faith The infants of all such yea of the worst of such are the servants of God
is the note of the Church and gives his censure that that is a more laxe and ambiguous terme then the former And seeing that I am not able to satisfie him with any notions that I can reach I shall endeavour at present to help his sight in pointing out to him men in Covenant with God that when he lookes upon the men and the character given of God himself of them he may if he please guesse at the Covenant it self Scripture-characters of men in Covenant Do's Mr. Baxter know what Covenant that was that the Captains of tribes Elders Officers with all the men of Israel little ones wives strangers from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water entred into Deut. 29. and what kind of men they were that avouched the Lord to be their God and whom God avouched to be his peculiar people Deut. 26.17 18. Do's he know who those be that throughout the Old Testament-Scriptures the Lord calls his people his inheritance his portion his sonnes and daughters And who those kinsmen of Paul according to the flesh were to whom pertained the Adoption the glory and the Covenants Rom. 9.4 Do's he know who those were in New Testament-times that were converted by thousands myriads of thousands then he knows who God lookes upon as his in Covenant and to whom Covenant priviledges appertain And doubtlesse those hearers that Isaiah describes and from him all the Evangelists of fat hearts dimme eyes heavy eares whilest God had not removed his Candlestick were included They were in Covenrnt with God If it be said that these are said to be in Covenant equivocally I answer 1. I dare not charge the constant language of the Spirit of God in Scripture with equivocation 2. I am sure that they upon that account really enjoyed the priviledges under dispute were called by the name of a Church Acts 7.38 and had that elogy a people near unto the Lord. And to say that these were in Covenant with a quatenus aliquo modo sic aliquo modo non when God testifies that they avouch him to be their God I think is too great boldnesse That those that rose no higher then these mentioned have no right to the great blessings of the Covenant as Christ pardon Justification Adoption glory upon that account that they come not up to the faith called for in Covenant I freely with Mr. Baxter grant Those are too high Favours for Covenant breakers yet I say as all Israel did de facto enjoy so all of the like faith in foro Dei have their right of his free bounty to all those Church-priviledges that serve to fit for glory He is pleased to say Mr. Bl. had done better if with that moderate reverend godly man Mr. Stephen Marshall he had distinguished between those two questions who are Christians or Church-members and whom we are to judg such and use as such and to bring in the latter rank onely I know not where Mr. Marshall thus distinguishes If he speaks of members of the Church invisible it is not at all to our purpose we are not speaking to them And if he mean members of the Church visible I know no use of such distinction we can well enough know such members otherwise they were not visible Let Mr Baxter look upon those notes of a Church-member which he mentions where he intended a confutation of my 31. chap. in case I had not spoken to his mind and the same things with him and then see whether such cannot be known I think those of the Worcestershire combination may know who those be whom they take into Communion In a parenthesis he is pleased to tell me that herein I joyn with Mr. Tombs To which I reply what animosity soever he hath against me I shall not leave any one truth to shunne agreement with him when Mr. Baxter himself affirms that Mr. Tombs and he are agreed in that particular that he there mentions pag. 92. though most Divines as he there saies are against them both sure I may boldly joyn with him when most Divines are for us He tells me Those that professe to fear God and love him we must love and honour as men that do fear and love him yet in different degrees as the signs of their graces are more or lesse probable In some common confessing Christians we see but small probability yet dare we not exclude them from the Church nor the number of true believers as long as there is any probability Others that are more judicious zealous diligent and upright of life we have far stronger probability of and therefore love and honour them much more All this is true in case we were to enquire after the fear of God in its power or the image of God renewed in sincerity But when it is applyed to visible Church-membership I know not what to make of it Must I more or lesse honour a man accordingly as he appears more or lesse visibly in Congregations After a long discourse about the Covenant and faith dogmatical which I shall have occasion further to touch upon he concludes thus The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confesse are mine against Dr. Ward The Author vindicated from singularity and I did not think in so grosse an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause How this passage fell from his penne may well be to every intelligent Reader matter of admiration not that he chargeth an opinion from which he dissents to be so notably grosse which is not very unusual but that a man of such multiplicity of reading should think that Dr. Ward in this opinion would not have found a second when if he hath perused our approved Authors about the question especially since it came to a punctuall just debate he may soon see that he hath almost every one to appear for him if this which he mentions be his opinion unlesse perhaps he hath been so held in reading the Fathers and other Writers for the first thirteen or fourteen hundred years in which few will I think come out and vye with him that he hath not regarded what hath been said this hundred and fifty years in this corner of the world when his book came first out I received a letter from as learned an hand as any I have to converse withall noting this as a singular tenent and when upon occasion I have mentioned it that Mr. Baxter holds that no faith that is short of that which justifies gives title to Baptisme it sounded so strange that I could not gain credit to the report of it He that hath spent so much pains in that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be ignorant of that usual distinction of Covenant holinesse and holinesse habituall and personall The former according to Divines and Mr. Baxter himself is an holinesse of relation to God and separation for him which was found in all the Nation of the Jews and now is in all professed believers and their
he calls the great question between him and me is no question at all It were madnesse to affirm that which with these limits he thus denyes Yet still I say that the Covenant which Baptisme seales is made with the unregenerate as well as regenerate persons which as we have heard he makes Mr. Tombe's error to deny And because the Covenant belongs to them Baptisme in like sort belongs to them and as upon that account we must baptize them so in foro Dei according to the mind of Jesus Christ they have right to Baptisme Which in case Mr. Baxter shall deny I shall desire him to reflect upon the afore-cited passages of his own together with that which pag. 65 of this Treatise he delivers If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed but dissembledly then as he is equivocally or analogically a believer or Christian so I yield he is a member of the Church visible And Church-membership is one of his own mediums to prove a right to Church-entrance by Baptisme and here is a Faith not above dogmatical At least short of that which is justifying and yet such a faith as is real having reall fruits and effects and sometimes reall miracles If the argument hold when it is thus enfeebled how much more when it is put in its full strength Such an one is univocally in Covenant whose dissimulation is no other then necessarily attends an unregenerate estate in case there be any thing in Scripture above equivocation They remembred that God is their Rock the high God their Redeemer Psal 78.34 And whereas I stand charg'd in this discourse by Mr. Baxter with several uncouth if not wild opinions and assertions about the Covenant and Mr. Baxter despairs as we have heard of understanding of my meaning I shall here endeavour as to vindicate so to explain my self in like manner that the Reader if not Mr. Baxter may be brought to a right understanding avoiding as much as may be both nicety and multiplicity 1. It is said that I suppose certain Promises to go before the great Law of Grace Those that suppose such saith he are of two sorts 1. The Arminians and Jesuites 2. Such as Mr. Bl. about Church-Ordinances And having spent many lines upon the Arminians to shew his dissent and assent so that the Reader may well have forgotten both me and my charge he saith 2. The Author vindicated from a fiction imposed The second part of promises before the great Covenant of Grace is feigned by Mr. Bl. and if there be any other that go that way as some do and that with some difference amongst themselves and that is a promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying nor saving One that Mr. Baxter will not deny to be eminently learned and I think as well vers'd in his Writings and mine as any man alive Far better I believe then he in mine or I in his upon observation of this passage replyed as by addresse to him You rather feign this of Mr. Bl. then find it in him And I professe I know no man whose brain ever either hatch'd or vented such a crotchet Neither do I know how this mistake was ever entertained for I believe it was a mistake unlesse it be that taking for granted that there is no Covenant of grace entred with any out of the state of grace and finding that I assert that Church-Ordinances appertain to unregenerate Christians and those that are short of faith that is justifying he here fancies a promise of these made to a faith of this kind Whereas that which I say is That every acceptation of a Gospel-tender which tenders a man a Christian outwardly actually vests him in right to these Ordinances as it did the Jew outwardly Rom. 3.1 And that these Ordinances are necessarily requisite to bring men up to the fruition of those happy priviledges of Pardon Justification Adoption Glorification So that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them Neither do I know any promises preceding the Covenant of Grace Such must be made to meer Heathens or those that are in a parallel estate aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Unlesse perhaps some such promise to some such upon some particular account may be found Yet if he can work me to be of his mind that Election Regeneration and the Covenant of Grace are commensurate so that no non-elect man is in Covenant then shall I say that there are Promises made before the Covenant The Apostle speaking of the Jews that for the generality of them were neither elect nor regenerate saith To them appertained the Covenants I may therefore charge it upon him with better reason then he upon me Those stand vested in promises that he sayes are out of Covenant The Promise is said to belong to those Jews Rom. 9.4 on whom yet the Word took no saving effect verse 6. Hence by opposition to the Gentiles they were those that were not strangers to the Church but of it They were not strangers to the Covenant of Promise but in the same Eph. 2.11 12. Hence God saith he maketh his Covenant with them all Deut. 29.10 12 13 14 15. speaking there of that solemn renewal of the Covenant of Grace as Deut. 30.6 10 12 13 14. compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8. evinceth So Ezek. 16.8 he made a Covenant with that Church and people many whereof proved very base as that Chapter sheweth Cobbet just vindicat pag. 46. Where much more to this purpose from many Texts of Scripture may be seen The Authour further vindicated I am farther charged that my common phrase is That they namely unregenerate men are in the outward Covenant with this note upon it what that is I cannot tell Who would not now think but that here were a phrase peculiarly mine Upon which the same learned hand as before expresseth himself in these words I do not see that that phrase is common with Mr. Bl. He rather useth it as from others which any may evidently see if they consult pag. 189 190. of my Treatise of the Covenant But of this I have spoke before and therefore his guesses upon it that he believes that it is called outward by reason of outward blessings annexed to it might have been spared They that use it expresse their own meaning The Covenant they say is but one and the same but all are not in the Covenant after one and the same manner Some are onely in it by outward profession to the present participation of outward priviledges but some by cordial acceptance to the enjoyment of saving benefits by means of these priviledges He sayes in the place quoted I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. 1. To have told us what those outward blessings are that this Covenant promiseth But what need I to tell him when pag. 61. he hath told me that it is a
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
spoken of and that is before Baptisme I have answered that this is the weakest of all Arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be an Hysteron Proteron and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose it rests upon him to prove that here is none 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetorick came to be talked on I think no such thing is here to be asserted So I should say Baptisme doth alwaies lead and Faith follow I onely said that all that can be collected hence is that in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptisme though as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists there is not one and the same kind of necessity which they confirm by the words that follow If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order then he must say that Faith alwaies precedes and never followes after Baptisme against the common observation that sometimes it precedes sometimes it accompanies sometimes it followes and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptized man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying And then he may preach in England to build up Converts but not to convert or at least when he hath converted he must baptize his convert the seal is null that goes before a Covenant I gave instance in that place of Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience followes upon Baptisme affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation or at least a principall branch of it and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede but a necessity that it should follow In which I did not imply that a man before Baptisme may not believe as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary but that it tyeth him to the faith at least to follow after Mr. Baxter saith I gratefully accept your Concession that justifying faith is that restipulation which is your Minor that is justifying faith professed and thence I conclude that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant and so without it God is not in Covenant with men It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good Who knowes not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation And that this Restipulation is an essentiall part of the Contract called stipulation This being past doubt it followes that justifying faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismall Covenant They onely it seems that have read the Civil Law can see a necessity of this Conclusion I and other Divines call this promise Restipulation and I though other Divines do not say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise And so the Promise being essential Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called or that I so intended it then this is a true Proposition justifying faith is a Promise can any think that I ever intended so egregious a peece of affected nonsense Justifying faith with me is the thing promised or that to which we restipulate Who that hath read Rhetorick or heard any man speak doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant Then you hit the nayl on the head and till that is done you have done nothing Arg. 3. reviewed Mr. Baxters third Argument is That faith to which the promise of remission and justification is made must also be sealed to or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition in foro dei of the title to the seal But it is onely solid true faith which is the condition of the promise of remission In what sense faith is the condition of the Promise Therefore it is that which gives right in foro Dei to the seal To this I have answered faith is not sealed to but remission of sins or Salvation upon condition of faith and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments I shall God willing make this more evident that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our priviledges and not duties and I referre the Reader thither When I say a professor of faith may ingage to a lively working faith I am followed with this Dilemma You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead not working faith If the first it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith and he onely ingageth so to believe hereafter For if he professe to have it already then he can ingage onely to the continuation and not to the inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a dead not working faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptisme to believe lively for the future inceptivè and to believe for the future with a working faith I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature and then answer He that thus professeth to have a lively faith either professeth it knowingly so that he is assured that he speaks the truth or with haesitations doubts and fears so that he questions the truth of all that himself saies The latter doubtlesse can give no title according to Mr. Baxter For a man to professe and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession can give no such title as is required if the former be intended that every man professing must know the truth of his profession then none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe have any right to Baptisme and then you see how high we are gone Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possesse their places in the Ministery much more of all that enter into Christianity For a direct answer I therefore say It is not profession to say that we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with ingagement to it that gives this title There followes You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptisme saying Lord I believe that thou art God alone and Christ the onely Redeemer and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people and that the world flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee but at present there are lusts so deare to me that I will not forsake them for thee
and takes to other objects that is to me sufficient Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel the whole of those choyce observations or can it be any way certainly collected that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him quoting those Texts John 11.25 26 27. John 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 he addes Here is more then right to Baptisme Then a man may have right to Baptisme that is short of those great priviledges of dwelling in God and being born of God and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion It further followes If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of justifying faith you do not lightly erre It followes not I think from any thing that I have said that I am in any such opinion That Expression is in Philips words and I have told you he might require de bene esse that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptisme But in case I be in any so heavy an Error I am thus holpen out of it Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him It is then granted that he may believe all truths and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart is not with me convincing The Word had not root not because they did not intirely from the heart assent to it But because they received it not in the love of it They received the light to inform their judgments not any thorow heat for the warmth of their affections There followes Doubtlesse whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified which must be said if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true believer Here is suggested that I say that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer I know not where I have said it or any thing that implies it It may be a true assent though not of that strength But if I had said it will it thence follow that God doth sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified I trow not Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified Clearnesse of light commands assent to truths when corruption of affections will not suffer that at least pro hic nunc that the goodnesse or bestnesse if I may so say should be believed I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satans Buffettings I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself he doubtlesse injects Scruples where himself is without scruple I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in divels notwithstanding James saith The Devils believe and tremble But certain it is there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils as we may see Matth. 8.29 Mark 3.11 Luk. 4.41 Acts 19.15 and yet there is no sanctification wrought And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified I am further referr'd to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble which is not in my hands and whether my answer be equal to silence as is in the close affirmed I must leave to the Reader to determine Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin which wonderful change in him may well be my admiration All know that have looked into my Birth-priviledge that I delivered the same things there as in my Treatise of the Covenant I have asserted against Mr. Firmin and that past with Mr. Baxter if reports have not deceived me with good approbation I communicated to him a considerable part of my defence of it against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it And besides what I have produced already out of him I have a witnesse of reverend esteem that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction of the title of unregenerate men or some phrase parâ—llell to Sacraments But in case upon change of judgment he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular and that meerly as he sayes in love of the truth least the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better then the other Religions of the world Further explaining himself For I fear this loose doctrine so he is pleased to call it of Baptisme will do more to the pollution of the Church then others loose doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him First To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement either in judgment or in practice both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches but Mr. Baxters friend for whom he is about to undertake as to his judgment is yet in the lower form when he is in the upper Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member but declares himself very largely against it he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptisme It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge and free from scandal which he well knowes to be the case of many in unregeneration And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgment yet he sits down far short of him in practice and sayes that we are bound to baptize all those that make an outward profession and consequently their children when Mr. F. upon tender conscienciously refuses many of them Mr. F. and I are as I suppose upon neerer terms of accord then Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title and a faith that is short of justifying may
conclusion with me is de fide when it is concluded 4. He saies I must have better proof before I can believe that it is assurance of our own sincerity or actual justification which the Apostle calls the full assurance of faith Heb. 10.22 And I think he is the first man amongst orthodox Divines that hath doubted that assurance of acceptance is meant in that place Faith is that grace say the last Annotations whereby we either do or may approach unto God with full assurance of acceptance Is not that boldnesse in our addresses mentioned ver 19. an evident symptome of it And is not sincerity fet forth in those words having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water as the basis or bottome of it not of our acceptance but of our assurance I must hear somewhat more before I can question it There followes 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sincerity in the description of faith Heb. 11.1 unlesse you mean that hope is part of faith and assurance the same with hope both which need more proof Hope may be without assurance and when it is joyned with it yet is not the same thing onely such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of hope And can you not discern a double encomium of faith in those words The first with respect to things past and present as well as things to come where it is said to be The evidence of things not seen Faith makes that evident which otherwise would not be known The other respective to things to come and that not evil but onely good not things feared but hoped expressed in these words Faith is the substance of things hoped for both of them rather expressing what faith does then what faith is and I know not why that speech of hope should be brought in here when it is onely said that the good things hoped for are that which faith realizes to the soul It is said further 6. It is true that faith may be said as you speak to realize salvation to the soul that is when the soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a glory and salvation to be expected and enjoyed by believers as Christ hath promised ere faith apprehendeth it as real or certain and so resolves the doubt And is this all that faith can possibly do and for which this high praise is here given unto it Against this I say First This was expressed in the former branch the evidence of things not seen faith believes a heaven as well as a creation Secondly a faith short of justifying may do this an historical faith assents to the highest dogmatical truthes Thirdly will you have the full assurance of hope Heb. 6.11 to be no other then to get assurance that there is a heaven though we shall never come to heaven which would be a contradiction for hope hath possession in expectation Fourthly doth not our hope enter into that within the vail whither our forerunner is gone before us Heb. 6.19 and are we not saved by hope Rom. 8.24 Faith then being said to be the substance of things hoped for it doth not barely tell us that there is a heaven that is too lank and lean a commendation of it but the office of it is to realize the possession of it to us It followes But when the doubt is whether I be a true believer saith resolves it not Faith hath its hand in the resolving of this doubt in believing from the Scriptures what are the Symptomes or cognizances of true believing and gathering them up by reflex upon it self It followes And when the doubt is whether this certain glory and salvation shall be mine faith onely cooperateth to the resolve of it by affording us one of the propositions but not both and not wholly the conclusion If faith affords us one of the propositions and findes the other in the Scriptures that is to me sufficient It followes 7. I am of Dr. Amesius his mind that it is one of faiths most eminent acts by which it is there described But undoubtedly you were not so in your sixth animadversion when you left it so low as we have heard and made it no more then the faith of wicked men may reach There is added But so think not they that tell us that is none of the instrumental justifying act which is there described But doubtlesse they may very well think so This here mentioned is a more eminent work of faith then that of justifying as a child on a Giants head is further removed from the earth and nearer the clouds then the Giant himself Faith that gives assurance presupposeth the justifying act already done by it self and addes more to it when a man believes savingly there is Certitudo objecti he that believes shall be saved but this here mentioned is Certitudo subjecti when the good hoped for is assured to the soul If there be any other promise made of God for good this work of faith I confesse takes it in and I do not believe that the Apostle doth limit this work of faith to the hope of salvation but I am sure he doth not exclude it that being the chiefest thing in our hope that is undoubtedly chiefly intended and might well by me be mentioned It followes 8. This which you took to be a good answer is that great mistake which hath so hardened the Papists against us and were it not for this point I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest about conditional sealing as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main If that be that great mistake I am still in the mistake and you are the first man that ever went about to rectifie it but you herein fail that you shew not wherein the mistake lies Those Divines that deny faith to be assurance that were as much as to define a man by such excellencies that are to be found in few men and so to exclude the common pitch of men from the species of mankind do not yet deny but that faith may attain to assurance It followes 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer when you confine it to those onely that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they believe i. e. savingly I think that they as well as I confine it to those that you here mention It followes I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by assured grounds c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative I believe that strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to life and few there be that find it There are not many we may fear that do savingly believe and many of those are not yet assured that they do believe and to this Mr. Baxter hath spoke abundantly sufficient in his Saints rest It followes 10. Demonstrations
faith is not Sanctification Sanctification is inherent the righteousnesse of faith is imputed but circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith And that Baptisme signifies and seals the same thing we find expressely in Peters words Ast. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Remission of sins is by blood Heb. 9.22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission Baptisme is for remission of sins and therefore the water in Baptisme holds out the blood of Christ And I doubt not but Ananias had respect to this in his speech to Paul Act. 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins Somewhat it is to which these signs engage and that is all unto which a Christian in duty as duty stands engaged whether for his change in heart or life or in order to the pardon of his sin Baptisme engages to the first work of regeneration and to the first work of making all new within To this circumcision did tye as it signified it so it engaged to it Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiffenecked If by vertue of their circumcision in the flesh God did not require it why is the want of it charged on Judah as their sin or how could it lay them open with other Nations to punishment Jer. 9.25 26. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will punish all them that are circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt and Judah and Edom and the children of Ammon and Moab and all that are in the uttermost corners that dwell in the wildernesse for all these Nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncicumcised in the heart And that the first work is required as well as a further degree and progresse both in circumcision and baptisme is clear In baptisme we are explicitly dedicated as the Jewes were implicitly in circumcision to Father Son and holy Ghost and therefore engaged to be sincerely his in Covenant But this cannot be till a change be wrought and we be born again from above To this therefore we are engaged We are engaged to love the Lord with all our heart with all our strength but this cannot be while our hearts are in an unchanged condition and therefore the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 is mentioned in order to this of the love of the Lord The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul what is it but the first work that is called for in that of the Prophet Make ye a new heart and a new spirit Ezek. 10.31 And in those texts of the Apostle Awake thou that sleepest and stand up from the dead Ephes 5.14 Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds Rom. 12.2 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man And be renewed in the spirit of your minds Ephes 4.22 23. Howsoever some of these Scriptures may be conceived to be directed to men in a state of Regeneration and therefore that they call not for the first work but for a further progresse in grace yet all of them cannot be so Interpreted And there is not any of them but implyes that where the first work is not done it must be done where the old man is not put off it must be put off and where the new man is not put on it must be put on where the spirit is not renewed it must be renewed Neither is it of force against this to say that the first work is out of our power and that in it we are wholly passive and therefore we do not in baptisme engage to it but God rather engages for it To which I answer Though it be out of our power yet it is within the command of God and is matter of our duty Gods command is no rule of our strength neither is it brought down to answer our weaknesse so a carnall man should be under no spiritual command but it is a rule of our duty what we once were and still ought to be it commands us for to be And though we be passive in the first work yet we are alwaies concerned to be active and assoon as we do receive power we are to act Dead Lazarus was commanded to rise and having power communicated from God he did actually rise and come out of the grave There is not any promise of God for inherent Grace nor any work of Grace but it comes within our duty and a command lies on us as instance might be given and consequently there is an obligation and engagement to it Gods command and his promises stand not in opposition but in subordination and to say that God is engaged and not man is dangerous then all that are baptized must be regenerate or else God fails in his engagement Somewhat it is that these signs seal and in sealing ratify and confirm and that is as the text shewes the righteousnesse of Faith and consequently all other priviledges whatsoever of like nature that are annexed to it Remission Justification Adoption Glorification Sacraments as seals have not as I conceive at least immediately and directly reference to graces or inherent habits but priviledges They are as Mr. Baxter hath well observed seales of the conditional Covenant and so they must seal whatsoever they do seal on Gods terms and conditions they ratifie mercies promised on those termes that the Covenant doth promise now graces are the conditions and termes of the Covenant and mercies are promised upon those termes and therefore the Covenant requires them but the Sacraments do not ratifie and seal them The Sacraments as signs shew us our wants of or wants in grace by the help of the Word and light received from it they point us out where supply may be found they engage us to this change to the whole of duty required from the people of God and upon answer of our conscience in this work they seal and confirm all promised priviledges to us The nature efficacy and operation of Sacraments would be better understood if that which is proper to each part or the particular office in each relation were better known The seal in a Lease as from the Lessor doth not ratifie the homage that is to be done by the Lessee or the service from him due but the inheritance or benefit whatsoever which upon condition of such homage or service is conveyed Graces are the homage and priviledges are the benefit or the inheritance the priviledges then and not the graces are directly in Sacraments sealed to us It is not sealed up to us either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper that we do believe or repent but that believing and repenting we have forgivenesse of sin and salvation But some say that the Sacraments seal all that the Covenant promises but the Covenant promises Grace and therefore the Sacraments
perish if we look unto the order in which he stands in respect of God that predestinates See the suffrage of the Divines of great Brittain art 5. part 2. thes 3 4 5 6. Davenants Epist prop. ult Burges on Justification pag. 240. The Assemblies confession of faith Position 3 3. Sins of this nature in an unregenerate man bring him under Gods wrath and present displeasure though they do not work him into a state of wrath or utter losse of his justified state They cause him to bear his Fathers frown though he shall not dye as a Malefactor He shall not enter into condemnation yet he is not taken out of the hands of discipline see Isai 57.17 18. For the iniquity of his covetousnesse was I wroth and smote him I hid me and was wroth and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart I have seen his wayes and will heal him I will lead him also and restore comforts to him and to his mourners These of whom the Prophet here speaks were a people of Gods everlasting love being those whom he heals and to whom he restores comforts They were yet overmuch carried out to covetousnesse and pursuit of creature contentments Gods wrath was upon them for this miscarriage of theirs he was moved here upon to appear in displeasure against them he smites them in his wrath and hides his face in displeasure from them having his eye open to their sin but his face withdrawn from their consolation Num. 20.13 we may find Moses and Aarons sin and the Psalmists observation upon it Psal 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips Moses suffers from God for his sin when he suffered the people to provoke him to sin This Moses seems never to have done with Deut. 1.37 3.26 4.21 so that God punishes for sin and in anger punishes for it If love and wrath cannot consist as some would have it then Moses was none of Gods beloved 2 Sam. 11. we find Davids sin set out at length and how it took with God we find in the end of the chapter The thing that David did displeased the Lord and that it was no otherwise in New-Testament-times is clear As the onenesse and samenesse of the Covenant which we and they were under doth evince it so also Gods dealings with the Corinthians upon their prophanation of the Lords Supper is a proof of it 4. Sin thus committed is such an obstruction in the way of blisse Position 4 and salvation that there lyes a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance and by prayer to make application to the throne of grace in order to pardon and forgivenesse This is Gods way to bring his into the wayes of salvation and life when they have stept aside into the wayes of death To this end God keeps up Discipline with his own hand as we may see 1 Cor. 11.31 32. The Apostle having there reproved these Corinthians in a tart way for prophanation of the Lords Supper and disswaded them from it by the deadly nature of the crime they were herein guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and the danger they incurred eating and drinking judgement to themselves he farther sets before them present experiments of Gods hand For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep In this place he lets them know how they might avoid this judgement If we would judge our selves we should not be judged Our examination and sentence might avert the examination and sentence of heaven And then acquaints them with Gods end in this visit of his to correct as a Father and not condemn as a Judge But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world The application here is easie They are the Elect of God and of saving Gospel interest that are kept from condemnation A way in sin would have brought them as others in the world into condemnation If they might have been saved in sin when the world was damned for sin this correction for that end did not need To avoid condemnation therefore for sin God by his judgements lashes them out of it By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sin So that the tendency of sin even in a child of God is to bring to condemnation and the care of God is by afflictions to take him off from sin that he might not be condemned To this end Church-discipline is also set up of God 1. Cor. 5.3 4 5. For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath so done this deed in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus How farre that sentence of giving up to Satan did reach I shall not stand to determine whether barely to cast him out of the Church and put him among those over whom Satan reigned or as consequent of it horrors and terrors from Satan by Gods just permission when the Church leaves him off from their communion God casts him off from his protection and consolation which as is said ordinarily followed upon this sentence in Primitive times The end is plain the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus If this mans former justification would have brought him on in his sin without step to salvation all this had not needed that his spirit might be saved See further 2 Cor. 7.9 the Apostles severe dealings with these Corinthians concerning this incestuous member had cast them down with grief and this grief raised the Apostles spirit with joy not that they had grieved but that their grief had so happy an issue Now I rejoyce not saith he that ye were made sorry but that ye sorrowed to repentance adding ver 10. For godly sorrow works repentance to salvation not to be repented of They were stepping therefore out of the salvation-way repentance brings them back This in reason is plain If new sins thus committed occasion no such obstruction as to bring a necessity of repentance as some would have it then the free grace of God gives a man full liberty to sin opens a gap to all ungodlinesse this will then follow which some have prophanely inferred from some Gospel-principles Live as I list and shall be saved What shall hinder if no way in sin either hath any tendency to condemnation or is any obstruction in the way of salvation Some I know to avoid this speak of that holy filial ingenuous disposition in a
how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received if no barre be put which they understand of the Sacramental bread is very well known But as some have observed where poyson growes providence takes care that there be antidotes found so none of these ever appeared in the Church but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision Jer. 9.25 26. As also Paul making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time and disputing at large against it Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing it seems that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes makes it his businesse to prevent it Having affirmed that Baptisme saves he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power but by the resurrection of Christ that is Faith in the Resurrection and further explains himself that it is not the outward act alone but as answered with an inward work that hath that power as you have heard And Popish Schoolmen making it their work as we have heard to advance Sacraments to that height Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them and what in their right use may be expected from them Calvin's words lib. 4. instit cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs On the other hand saith he b Rursum admonendi sumus ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant usumq prorsus evertunt ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt Sacramenta novae legis hoc est quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae justificare et conferre gratiam modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalâ—s Quae sententia dici non potest quà m sit exitialis et pestilens eoque magis quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit Planè certe diabolica est nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur animas in exitium praecipites agit deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit miseras hominum mentés in terram sâ— apte sponte plus satis inclinatas hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant we are to be advertis'd that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments and utterly overthrow their use so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them such that we never read that God ever put into them which errour saith he dangerously deceives the simple and unlearned Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found they are by degrees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law that is those that are now in use among Christians do Justifie and confer grace provided that we put no barre of mortal sin Which opinion saith he hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken and so much the more because for many Ages to the great losse of the Church it hath prevailed It is certainly saith he devillish for whilest it promiseth Justification without Faith it casts soules headlong to destruction And upon that account because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men over-much of their own accord inclined to earth that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself This is his entrance upon the dispute That which he hath further upon it in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading The consent of other Writers of his time and that have followed after him as a cloud of witnesses might be produced but this as the Reader hath heard is already done to my hand And when some of reverend esteem and singularly deserving in the Church of God have gone overmuch on this hand as soon as it was carried abroad in Manuscripts a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work this as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth followed it And let me here adde to that which hath been said that if nothing else yet experience might correct this over-high conceit of the work of Sacraments That which we evidently see is not wrought by Sacraments we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work This Proposition hath certainly reason in it They certainly do that office which God hath assign'd and appointed them But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out even where according to these there is no bar put therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it Here I might instance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin that stands not with actual forgivenesse But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Justification and therefore this is not against them and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification one for the state of Infancy another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy and afterward upon their acting of sin charged here is no such intercision of justification which Arminians hold and their adversaries oppose I shall therefore wave this and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration which is as well figured out in Baptisme as that other of remission of sin Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt but also to correct the power of original corruption and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin as well as the pardon of it And in case Baptisme effects this work how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self that as soon as they act they are so readily prone to act that which is evill When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord Samuel had a confutation ready What means then sayes he this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in mine ears that
of further operation Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished that which is objected holds of instruments wholly operative not of those that are meerly receptive A man receives a gift with his hand as the lame man was ready to do when he expected something from Peter and John Act. 3.5 and he earnes his living with his hand as Paul did when in some exigents his hands ministred to his necessities Act. 20.34 In the former mans hand concurres to his enriching but he enriches not himself as in the later The denomination is from the fountaine whence all flowes not from the hand that accepts or the cistern that doth receive There is added In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion nor much stresse laid on it if it were true because it is so obscure It seems then that not I but our Religion is the author of this so high a contradiction so that I cannot defend Religion but I am put upon it to assert such contradictions and who layes greatest stresse upon that which is not obscure and dark I leave to the Reader of Mr. Baxters Aphorismes and Apology to determine It followes That man concurres as a ready agent who doubts but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Do I or doth our Religion make man or faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Quote some words of mine or some Article of faith in any of the Protestant Confessions that affirmes it were some others in my stead they would highly rhetoricate and tell the world what would be said when they are dead But this is my comfort when I am dead Religion will stand up for its own defence that the concurrence of a ready agent hath somewhat of efficiency in it I think none can deny and that such concurrence that I have mentioned can rise to be the efficient I think Faith is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification very few will affirm And to bring my self into that which he before hand charges to be so absurd I said And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also the instrument of God As some have observed a communication of titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Ephes 3.17 We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Act. 15.17 They believed and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification So on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8.13 Here Mr. Baxter first takes in hand the thing that I assert and when he hath done falls upon the proof which is first to quarrel with the conclusion and then to take the premises into consideration 1. It is said If this be indeed true God and man are not coordinate causes in Justification that it is mans instrument of justification and Gods both then both God and man are causae principales partiales by coordination making up one principall cause This he thinks I will not affirm and this indeed I do deny upon the reasons afore laid down it is mans instrument for concurrence in it but not of principall efficiency to produce it In case I had affirmed he gives in his reason of denyal of it in a Similitude of an absolute donor in which I grant the conclusion and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with it As to the proof that I bring he first excepts against that which I say others have observed and say This communication of titles 1. is very rare 2. uncertain whether ever and goeth about to take off that text 1. Cor. 12.12 But this being Heterogeneous to the work in hand I shall let his exceptions alone only pointing him out one another text with which if he please he may take like pains Jer. 23.6 Jer. 33.16 Compared After much ado to find out my meaning he resolves But it is like you intended to have said that there is a common or mutuall attribution of each others actions or one is intitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves And who but he that would seek a knot in a Bul-rush could have thought of any other but as the titles of one are observed by some to be attributed to another so the actions proper to one are attributed to the other Then a Dilemma is brought against me either this is in an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing and either of both is excepted against I say the action of one is said interpretative to be the action of the other because he makes use of it to do his own work or bring about his own purpose To the instance that I gave that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith he saies there is not a word to prove that there is a relative indwelling But Mr. Br. very well knowes that I did not oppose relative in this place to reall as intending to hold forth any effect wrought by Christs indwelling but the opposition is so absolute as I exprest my self I do not say that justification is directly spoke to in that place yet there is a proof I think sufficient that Christ makes use of our act to effect his own work which is as much as I intended elsewhere Mr. Br. is so free as to yield that faith is an instrument to receive Christ How Christ is said to dwell in us by faith but here he stickles hard to deny it but let us take notice of his concessions Christ saith he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter Faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us And so we might say he dwells by Love Hope Meeknesse Patience which I think no Scripture or Orthodox Writer sayes 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirit abode But it is so a condition as it is withall an instrumentall condition It is not barely said if you believe I will give you my Spirit which might imply barely a condition as it is said turn at my reproof and I will pour out my Spirit upon you but it is said we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith 3. Efficienter As the act of faith doth directly cause the encrease and so the abode of the habit And is it may we think a principal or is it an instrumental efficient If an instrumental I have what I desire and I am sure he will not say it is
cause be prejudiced by my weaknesse He asigns me to the party of those that he calls Reformers pag. 16. on what party himself stands it is easie then to determine Having said that these things are to be more accurately considered he expresses himself without any one title of Scripture in eight particulars I shall as briefly as I can take notice of the sum of them Mr Faxters eight heads taken into consideration 1. It must be known that the righteousnesse given to us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us Here we have a negation with its reasons and an opposite affirmation without any reason at all The negation is That the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous The reason is Accidents perish being removed from the subject and therefore the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous impliying that the reformed party take righteousnesse for justification out of Christ and leave him belike without any righteousnesse and put it into themselves and so as Christ was before so now they are inherently righteous He well knowes that they hold that it is still in Christ and of grace reckoned to be ours and therefore that of accidents perishing needed not an opinion which he vehemently opposeth in his Preface to his Confession If Christ onely saith he were righteous Christ onely would be reputed and judged righteous and Christ onely would be happy The Judge of the world will not justifie the unrighteous meerly because another is righteous nor can the holy Ghost take complacency in an unholy sinner because another is holy And yet himself holds That the Judge of the world will not onely take an infant born under the defilement of sin into Covenant as holy but also justifie him though in his opinion uncapable of any real change by the Spirit barely upon the account of the parents state in grace through regeneration We cannot be righteous through Christs righteousnesse notwithstanding we know that in the Gospel of grace it is reckoned ours and by faith have our interest Yet an infant is righteous by the parents rigteousnesse Notwithstanding we read not of any such imputation or any such way of interest by faith or otherwise I must crave leave to hold to the former which he leaves though not with his but Scripture comment upon it God does not justifie us meerly because another is righteous but because Christ is made of God to us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 and is Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 And to leave the latter which he holds I believe neither regeneration nor justification to be from Parent to child ex Traduce In which sense that holds Nemo nascitur sed fit Christianus I choose rather with Walaeus to subscribe to the opinion of Calvin lib. 4. instit cap. 16. Sect. 20. That Infants are baptized into future Repentance and faith which he saies is the opinion of most other Authors I believe Mr. Baxter chiefly took up this opinion of justification of infants tanquam Apendices parentum for Amiraldus his sake who had it from Camero Amiraldus qui nihil Cameronis imitatur preter naevos idem dicit and was his follower as aged and reverend Molinaeus saith in nothing but his blemishes And I would not have so good a friend and eminent ornament to the Church to make either of them in these his precedents The affirmation is that it is a righteousnesse merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience Here is a Proposition delivered with very little accuratenesse 1. The righteousnesse given is here distinguished from his obedience when certainly this obedience is that which is given to us By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Rom. 5.29 2. Christs satisfaction and obedience are here distinguished when his satisfaction was his obedience Joh. 10.18 Phil. 2. 3. His satisfaction is distinguished from this righteousnesse when I think it is plain that it self is righteousnesse Christs own as a Redeemer Ours as redeemed ones when Christ had taken upon him our sins he had not stood righteous in Gods sight without a discharge and this discharge is our acquittal and deliverance Queries put concerning this righteousnesse 4. We hear not whence this righteousnesse thus merited is where it resides and how made ours Is it a righteousnesse by a new Creation as the light was once made to shine out of darknesse was it put immediately into Christ or given immediately to us which seems to be Mr. Baxters thoughts to avoid perishing of accidents Is it one gift indefinitely at once for all or to all or is it given particularly numerically individually Is it made ours without us or by us If it be made ours whether is it by our acceptation through faith or ability merited for us to work it and so Christ merited that we might merit 2. It must needs be known saith he that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his righteousnesse which he gives us in remission remission or rigteousnesse may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but righteousnesse or remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of justification or at least but a secondary more remote object c. In this whole piece we have an affirmation a negation a concession and illustration Our Faith being terminated on Christ it is terminated on righteousnesse For the affirmation that faith is terminated on Christ we grant but that it is not therefore terminated on the righteousnesse which he gives in remission for remission I think was intended we are to learn And when it is granted that remission is the end which is ill confounded with righteousnesse one being the cause the other the effect it must be granted that a righteous Christ is the object and that Christ is received upon account of his righteousnesse were not this an accurate way of distinguishing to say that a man ready to perish with cold goes to the fire and not to heat for warmth The heart ready to perish with thirst goeth to the water and not to moisture If the soul ready to perish in unrighteousnesse goes to Christ for righteousnesse his faith cannot be terminated on Christ but it must be terminated on righteousnesse as the eye cannot be fixed on the sunne but it must be fixed on light We are holpen with a similitude As a woman doth not marry a mans riches but the man Though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband If Christ and righteousnesse were separable as a man and riches are this simile might be to
these words I know you had not leisure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply then barely to fill paper In contentions of this nature it is easie for great wits voluble tongues and nimble pens to be more then vain And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period and so render them to the Reader That my meaning cannot be seen till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needlesse triflings 2. If Mr. Baxter know as he sayes that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames without so much as colour of sense in it which were vain to repeat what was his end but meerly to fill up paper or somewhat worse in framing of it A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatise and not as mangled by his divisions may easily see another way of argumentation and such that carries sense and I leave to the Reader whether or no it carries strength And for his satisfaction Tht Authors argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace as instrument in justification I thus put it into forme That which often failes of obtaining the end for which it is employed and never can attain to it without the concurrence of some other with it is no sole instrument in any work But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of justification when it is to that end published and imployed and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joyned with it Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing and have the same aptitude to produce the effect even when it is not applyed I answer then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter and is no instrument in actual being but when the end is obtained and then it is no sole instrument being not sole in producing the effect Mr. Baxter takes it for granted that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed and I took it for granted that it is often employed and the effect not produced but I did not then think that Mr. Baxter had meant an application to convey right where right is already in possession I added When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation and the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death and so comes short of justification To this is replyed 1. So it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of justification I grant his first and he threapes kindnesse with me in the two last he will have me to speak of the threat onely when I speak as well as he of Gods grant or promise Gospel promises are a savour of death to many This is a savour of death unto death unto many It is as great an evil to sleight a Promise as to disobey a Command or neglect a threatning his third therefore migt well have been spared but that I intend not to trifle away time I could easily shew him if I had spoke of threat a great disparity I added which should not have come in thus dismembred The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred To this is replyed Darkly but dangerously spoken and reasons given For it is possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax and so I grant the sense There is no possiblity that I should mean so having sufficiently as he after observes declared my self to the contrary if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings which men eminently learned professe they do not It followes Dangerously for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith and that faith renders it efficacious not by infusion of any new power into it but raising up the soul with strength to answer it which is not barely said but proved But my bare speech must first be censured and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure as we shall see dealt with A reason is rendred why for the truths sake and my own these words have never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another The thred hath efficacy from a needle and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent or to make a seam or hem The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone fetch up a needle from the bottome of a vessel of water Here the hand is the principall agent or the man using his hand The knife is the instrument yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone as a concause instrumental The Gospel works no more without faith then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone It followes 2. If it were the former that is meant yet it were intolerable For which reasons are given but how these hang together I know not His former now spoken to was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them and this which is in order the second is to shew by three reasons that in case they be taken in the first sense which he himself professedly grants yet it were intolerable seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense and if I did he grants the sense there is no cause that I should trouble my self with his Reasons I added in way of proof Heb. 4.2 Unto us was the Gospel preached c. 1 Thess 2.12 13. To which is replyed But where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your cause I must speak nothing it seems but syllogismes in form and he that cannot here make up a syllogisme and find out a formall conclusion is a very Infant in Logick In the first Text the Apostle as he sayes speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the soul and our question is of the relative Heb. 4.2 Vindicated And what shew of proof is there that it is
these that they cannot cast them out of themselves 2. Faith makes that resolute choyce of Christ that it suffers all manner of afflictions rather than to be driven and divided from him After ye were illuminated saith the Apostle to the believing Hebrewes ye suffered a great fight of afflictions Heb. 10.32 To save the labour of turning over large Volumes of Martyrologies read over that little book of Martyrs as some have called Heb. 11. especially ver 35 36 37 38. Faith kindles that flame that many waters cannot quench Christ upon earth was a man of sorrowes and acquainted with griefs yet he had those disciples that never left him till he came to the Crosse and then sollicitously enquired after him Where Christ dwells by faith there the Spirit strengthens for sufferings Ephes 3.16 17. If men now look into their hearts and see themselves willing to follow Christ in fair weather and to own his cause whilest it costs them nothing but in worldly respects rather gain by the bargain but when trouble ariseth they are gone These may look into the Parable of the sower whether this be not an evidence of a rocky and stony heart A strong wind is the tryal of the root of the tree of the foundation of the house an hot scorching fire of the truth of the mettal It is true that self-ends sometimes put a man upon sufferings But it is alwayes true that self-ends onely put a man upon profession when he will not stand out in sufferings They whose Religion is the States Religion the Times Religion will not lose an hair by any profession they make Self and not Faith carries on that profession 3. As faith carries the soul up to Christ to be one with him so also it carries it on in every affection and office of love to his brethren In Jesus Christ neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love Gal. 5.6 It is not to be of this opinion or of that which men call their faith nor of this Nation nor of that which too oft prescribes all that men in their way of faith believe But to be possest of that faith which works by love which commends us unto God A man may be of this or that faith according to pleasure and yet his faith utterly destitute of that grace Faith carries a man not any further at all towards Christ then his love carries him on towards his brethren An idle faith is a dead faith and a dead faith never reacheth righteousnesse to Justification and life James never disputed against Paul's assertion of Justification by faith onely Writing after him as is generally confest he did not write to contradict any doctrine or correct any errours delivered by him When Paul concludes Justification by faith James concludes that it is by a working faith Where it works not it doth not then justifie and where it works to acceptation it works by love CHAP. XIII SECT I. Of the number of Sacraments AS a result from all that hath been said of the nature and use of Sacraments we may conclude the definite and distinct number of them So many Ordinances that we can find in Old or New Testament-Scriptures that are signs and seales of this nature as here hath been set out from the Apostles words so many Sacraments there are truly so called equally worthy of that honour of Sacraments with this of Circumcision being every way of the same nature and use they are deservedly to have the same esteem But falling short of such they are to have esteem as they are and their dignity may challenge but not to be put into this number The way to find out the number of Sacraments And I know no other way then this to find out the set and definite number of them Those trifling arguments made use of by some that the matter of New Testament-Sacraments viz. Water and Blood came out of the side of Christ and that blood and water as John affirms bear witnesse on earth are not worthy to be mentioned save onely that they are used by some of eminent name And upon diligent search we shall find onely two stated standing Ordinances in Old Testament-Scriptures and onely two in New Testament-Scriptures that are to be thus received We have not indeed any distinct Text in either of both Testaments expresly testifying that there are two and two onely Sacraments as we find it ordinarily in Catechismes Neither is there any distinct Text in the Law or Prophets that as we would that men should do to us so we should do to them Yet our Saviour Matth. 7.12 tells us that that rule is both in the Law and in the Prophets being a clear result from that which the Law and the Prophets have delivered The like may we say concerning the number of Sacraments It is as clear a result from that which is delivered to us both from Old and New Testament-Scriptures so that the conclusion is twofold drawn by way of deduction of this nature 1. Two onely standing Ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments Two onely Sacraments in the New Testament There were in Old Testament-times onely two standing Ordinances of the nature of Sacraments viz. Circumcision and the Passeover 2. There are in New Testament-times onely two Sacraments viz. Baptisme and the Lords Supper We shall begin with Old Testament-times and here our way of discovery is First To find out all those Signes or Ordinances that are set up in competition as Sacraments Secondly To enquire into the nature and use of them Thirdly To find out how nigh they come to the nature of Sacraments and what agreement they have with them Fourthly where it is that they are defective and fall short of Sacraments truly so called SECT II. Rainbowe no Sacrament THe first that offers it self is the Rainbowe of which we might speak First as it is in nature for discovery of the physical being of it Secondly as a sign appointed of God But the first consideration of it is not my businesse but the work of Philosophers who out of Aristotle have defined it to be A Bowe of many colours seated in an hollow and duskish cloud The definition of a Rainbow appearing upon the reflection of the Sun in opposition against it He that pleaseth may read further in Magirus physiol peripat lib. 4. cap. 5. Keckerman Syst Phys lib. 6. ad finem Zanch. de oper Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. Valesius de Sacrâ Philosoph cap. 9. So that the efficient cause is the Sun The subject in which it appeares is a cloud standing in Diametrical opposition The thing it self is the reflex of the Sun The form and shape is a bowe of variety of colours Whereupon it is generally concluded that there were bowes of this nature before the flood the Sun being then in equal vigour to produce it and clouds in which the reflex might be apparent And the cause being then as
you thus challenge never had any such thing in their thoughts Making the Scripture their study and Protestants writers their Comment they find Justification by the blood of Christ Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith Rom. 3.25 28. and works they find again and again excluded I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Christ our Saviour pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul This is added In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation upon Gods part his great mercy and grace upon Christs part Justice that is the satisfaction of Gods Justice or the price of our Redemtion by the offering of his body shedding of his blood with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively faith And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance hope love dread and the fear of God to be joyned with saith in every man that is Justified but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying With much more to the same purpose Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine and Suarez as they are in the Scriptures or at least that do not so much heed them deny all that you take for granted In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers then any that I have uttered can be to you to be righteous signifieth say you quoad legem novam non obligatus ad poenam cui debetur praemium This signification according to this new law I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit and rewarded we believe but not upon account of any righteousnesse inherent in them but the righteousnesse of Christ made theirs by faith and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousnesse You then adde So that you see that your first righteousnesse non reatus poenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requires Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as an other medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours I had thought that our righteousnesse had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing at best were it as perfect as Adams was but reather non reatus culpae If a man be charged with Murther his righteousnesse as to this charge is his not-killing and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet That follows upon it non reatus is not of the essence of righteousnesse nor is reatus of the essence of sin otherwise then consecutive And that Christs righteousnesse should be thus called a medium I do not see I think it is the thing it self and not a medium to it And that our righteousnesse is any medium to Justification as it is inherent I deny and that our inherent righteousnesse required by the Law of Grace stands in any such subordination to the righteousnesse of Christ as a necessary means to make it ours I see your word for it but I think and the reformed Churches are of the same mind that I have the whole current of Scripture against it You close up this discourse thus And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty that it might be not my fault that you are in ignorance all over But I have said the lesse because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousnesse in answer to the Animadversions of an other learned brother But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact paines of yours Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer And if his greater learning be not satisfyed with that which is more exact and elaborate my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with lesse exactnesse And your Reader will think you were not so well advised to publish your self and conceal your most exact opening of this poynt of so great concernement Though you might think that any thing might serve me yet all your exactnesse will I believe be litte enough in this poynt to give satisfaction to many Readers Whereas you had said in your Aphorismes pag. 122. Imperfect righteousnesse is not righteousnesse but unrighteousnesse Imperfect righteousnesse is no contradiction It is a contradiction in adjecto yet there admitting an imperfection in holinesse I answer'd I never took imperfect righteousnesse to imply any such contradiction more then imperfect holinesse To this you reply 1. By a way of concession that holinesse is taken first for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteousnesse 2. That the common use of the word Holinesse is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection as wel as righteousness Hitherto we are agreed but here say you is the difference Holinesse thus taken is a quality which though it have the truth of being yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs minùs righteousnes is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted And is not Righteousnesse a quality in like manner which is intended and remitted when Zachary saies Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies to serve in righteousnesse and true holinesse Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit as well as the other When the Angel said Rev. 22. He that is unjust let him be unjust still and he that is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still As unjust and filthy hold out vicious qualities from the flesh so Holy and righteous both signifie renewed qualities by the Spirit It follows Nay if you will exactly open it it will appear that the righteousnesse in question is a relation founded in a relation Yea more that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur nec remittitur this is that I mean by perfection besides the aforesaid transcendentall perfection And how shall we know what the righteousnes in question is either it must be gathered out of your own words or out of their words that you censure as guilty of such ignorance as before Let us look upon your own words Thess 2.2 which you there comment upon In this fore-explained sense it is that men in Scripture say you are said to be
many more Adversaries then you His work was published before yours and if you intended to publish no other doctrine How could you know that yours was like to blast your reputation with most Divines as in your Printed Letter you tell Mr. Tombs Pag. 409 When his work has mâ—ch advanc'd and not blasted his reputation at all In this Apology you tell me Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Protestant party in the doctrine of Jâ—stification aâ—quitting English Râ—form rs in one of them only And all except that one Davenant is as guilly as any The first is That the formall cause of our Righteousnesse is the formall Righteousnesss of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us And if this be an error no man is more chargeable then he with it He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Justit habit (a) Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae probatur The imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is proved to be the formall cause of our Justification Making it good in that Chapter by 11. Arguments and answering contrary objections Having confirm'd it with Arguments he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities And quoting Justin Martyr in the first place he thus comments upon him (b) Hic aptrtè doc et Justinus Martyr non modo mortem satisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam sed ipsam conversationem ejus seu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum Here Justin Martyr doth evidently teach that noâ— only the death and satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us to take away our punishment but also his conversation and active obedience is imputed to us to take away sin Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occasion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus The next error charged upon Protestants by you is about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteousnesse which the Divines say is by imputation And so Davenant says as we have already heard asserting against Bellarmine the greatest necessity as he speaks of it Pag. 32. Quoting against him Scriptures for it explaining Protestants meaning in it (c) Nos vero hâc imputatione justificationem sitam putamus non eo nomine solum quod Christus nos regit justitiâ suâ sed multò magìs quia donat nos justitiâ suà Neque dicimus Deum nos pro justis habere solummodo quia tectos conspicit justitia Redemptoris nostri sed quia ex sua ordinatione omnes credentes atque in unam personam cum Christo coalescentes justitiae ejus obedidientiae veré participes factos We think saith he that Justification is placed in this imputation not only because Christs covers us with his Righteousnesse but much rather because he freely conferrs his righteousnesse upon us Neither do we say that God accounts us as just only because he sees us Cloathed with the Righteousnesse of our Redeemer but because he sees by his own ordination all believers united into Christ as one person made truly partakers of his obedience But perhaps you are most offended with that which you put in the close of your Charge of this error upon Reformers That we are hereby namely by imputation of this Righteousnesse esteemed legaliter to have fulfilled the Law in Christ Which in your account is so high an error that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianisme And qâ—oting these words from a Reverend Brother whom sometimes at least you have had in high esteem That as in Christs suffering we were lookt upon by God as suffering in him So by Christs obeying of the Law we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him You appeaâ—e to youâ— Reader whether it be true or tolerable Yoâ— seem to think that the naming it is enough to work a deep dislike if not detestation of it And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he I am much mistaken See his third Argument for confirmation of his Thesis before mentioned Pag. 364. (d) Deus ex intuitu obedien 〈◊〉 per Christum praestitae usque ad mortem crucis nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis transgressoribus imputando nobis hanc alterius satisfactionem perinde ac si nostra fuisset Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Christum praestitae usque ad impletionem legis nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis observatoribus imputando nimirum nobis hanc alterius justitiam quasi etiam nostra esset God in beholding the obedience performed by Christ even to the death of the Crosse delivers us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law imputing this satisfaction of another to us even as though it had been ours Therefore in beholding the obedience of Christ yeelded even to the fulfilling of the Law he confers these benefits upon us which are promised to the observers of the Law that is by imputing to us this righteousnesse of another as though it were ours And much more to this purpose And afterwards further explaining himself he sayth (e) Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae satisfactionis Deus nos liberat ab ira poena quasi nos illam satisfactionem in propriis personis exhibuissemus Sic intuitu legis à Christo pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam proemium gloriae quasi nos nostrâ personali justitiâ legem implevissemus As upon sight of this imputed satisfaction God doth deliver us from wrath and punishment as though we had made satisfaction in our own persons So upon sight of the Law fulfilled by Christ for us he accepts us unto life and glory as though with our own personall Righteousnesse we had fulfilled the Law The third error which is charged upon Protestants is that from which English Reformers are acquitted The fourth is About the formall reason of faiths interest in Justification Which Protestant Reformers say as you observe from them is as the instrument This indeed Davenant doth not put to the question and purposely handle that I know as he does the former Yet we find him fully asserting it Answering Bellarmines objection that (f) Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum Quasi diceret Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae Luther made faith the formall cause of Justification he saith that Luther alwaies acknowledged it the instrumentall but not the formall unlesse under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith as though he should say that the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formall cause of our Justification Where we plainly see Davenants mind 1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ for justification is the instrumentall cause in it 2. That faith apprehends and applies this righteousness of Christ for
of Tertullian Cyprian and Austine If so then the doctrine of merit in the highest way as it is now taught in the Châ—â—â—â— of Rome was delivered by the Fathers the oppositioâ—◠〈◊〉 is as notorious a novelty as this of the instrumen◠〈◊〉 â—f Faith or justifying act by you is pretended How high Aquinas is for merit as also his followers all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see And in case in this time a change intervened and a new way be introduced you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion even Lombard himself was not the same man as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him 2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome since that time that closeth up your account viz. ann 1400. to this day As I take it their doctrine is substantially the same now as it was in Aquinas his age and some time before him The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing that their Doctors had of severall ages held And though they put upon it their sanction yet they made no sensible variation as they expresly declare themselves Sess 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome rigidly adheres to it It being therefore the same for 1400. years time as the most Antient Fathers taught yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered as afterwards you take the boldnesse to assert and the same now as it was then The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same as Christ and his Apostles left it Being faithfully kept by Fathers Schoolemen determined by the Council of Trent now maintained by Jesuites their adhaerents This is too clearly by you implied If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt see how much you dissent from your learned friend Mr. Gataker where he tells you in his second letter of that great difference that is between us and the Papists in the Dâ—ctrine of Justification As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of Justification which you speak as you say being so informed and I believe you have heard as much For many years before his death I heard it from an eminent hand and acquainted Mr. Ball with it who with much â—xpression of trouble of Spirit that it should be so voyced disclamed if and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith not then published and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 â—nt hath given to the world sufficient testimony agains◠〈◊〉 â—his bâ—uit perhaps gave occasion to that which Mr. Cranâ—â— â—nconsidâ—rately vented and you have so praise-worthily vindicated and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge as being an ear witnesse should be added 3. Whether the Fathers that you mention and others their contemporaries that you do not name were so distinct as might be desired in and about the word Justification and other words of concernment touching this controversie Though as to the thing it self they speak according to the Scriptures when thâ—y speak of Justification Reconcilliation Remission yet so farr as I have read find in the observation of others they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together which you declare your self at least to dislike in others making it not verbum forense as you yeeld it is but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteousnesse whereby we are not pronounced and acquitted as just upon the merit of Christ which otherwise they orthodoxly own but habituâ—lly so and therefore so denominated Being said to be Justified because of unjust we are made just which is the work of Sanctification and implies a reall and not a relative change such as is found in Justification And if some termes of theirs need amendment upon further inquiry into this doctrine then why not others 4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith or Faith in Christ quà Lord not to be the justifying act or the thing it self that you intend in that so large challenge of yours If it be the want of the words only instrument or quà Lord that you mention your charge is very low upon severall accounts 1. Words of art of this nature are seldome found in the Fathers There are few discourses in them about causes whether Efficient Finall Materiall Formall Instrumentall neither are there any so exact logicall distinctions under what notion they take that which they are upon in their writings Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen and little use made of them as I think before Lombards daies Protestant writers finding them in the Church are necessitated to make use of them as well that their adversaries may understand them as with their own weapons to deal with them And the Schoolemen having found another instrument in Justification viz. Baptism as appears â—y the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 6. Cap. 7. it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all that these do not so use it as it ought according to Scriptures 2. You would be I doubt not as much wanting in making proofe of the use of your own termes among the Fathers as your adversaries of theirs we may find the word instrument and the restrictive particle quà in your twenty six Fathers ascribed to Faith in Justification as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non or as I think your conditio cum quâ We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua and fides quà which you make the generall cheat as often as you can find your distinctions already examined which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together When you challenge the words of others as novel it lies upon you to assert the antiquity of your own If it be the thing it self that you challenge as not found in any Authors in this Compasse of time I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation as B. Jewell was in the defence of his that he published at Pauls Cross I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith and the whole of it that the Protestant Churches make the instrumentall work and that they assigne the same specificall object of Faith in the work of Justification as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted 5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers by you mentioned have purposely treated upon particulary spoken to this doctrine of Justification and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled that they that do not know it may turn and read it I have a considerable part of those that you mention though some
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
8 The Apostles definition Rom. 4 11 Vindicated Page 33 34 A full definition thence laid down Page 36 The sign and thing signifiâ—d in every Sacrament are Analogically one Page 49 50 No Sacrament without a promise preceding Page 56 Sacraments The distribution of them Page 9 God not tyed to Sacraments Page 30 31 They are standing Ordinances Page 294 Reasons evincing it Page 295 296 When they are dispensed they may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 The being of them consists in their usâ— Page 317 c. Arguments evincing it ib. The Sacrament of the Supper not exempted Page 119 Reasons given ibid. c. Sacraments have respect both to the change of of our nature and the removall of our guilt Page 368 We are to look for no more from Sacraments then God hath put into them Page 405 As the word teacheth by the ear so Sacraments by the help of the word teach by the eye Page 413 Men professing relation to God may see in Sacraments further engagements and provocations to holiness ibid. Sacraments are necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 508 Sacraments are seales entrusted in the hand of men Page 192 c. Sacraments seal the promise of the Gospell condionally Page 194 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his priestly office Page 567 All Sacraments from the fall substantially one Page 424 426 Sacramentall Gods condescension in sacramentall signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Mens aptness to delude themselves in Sacramentall privileges Page 405 All ages have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges Page 406 Sacraments Covenant All interested in Sacraments must come up to the terms of the Covenant Page 280 Sacraments annexed te the Covenant of works were without relation to Christ Page 10 11 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Sacraments are ever suitable to Covenants Page 413 All Sacraments must answer to the Covenant to which they are annexed Page 6 Sacraments without spirituall profit to them that live in breach of Covenant Page 18 A Covenant falling Sacraments that are annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant one and the same Page 25 The Covenant people of God the adequat subject of Sacraments Page 74 All interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. Sacraments Number The way to find out the number of Sacraments Page 514 No express Scripture to determine their number Page 515 Two onely standing ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments ibid. Five suppositious Sacrments of Rome examined Page 528 Sacrifices Whether of the dictates of nature Page 21 Not Sacraments Page 529 How far Sacramentall ibid. How they differ from Sacraments ibid. Saint A title in Scripture not proper in the justified Page 149 Sanctification The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in it Page 452 Satisfaction How Christs satisfaction to God for us is received by us Page 457 Sathan His imitation of God in the wayes of his worship Page 20 Sea Israels passage through it of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Seales Various acceptation of the word Page 326 Severall use of a Seal Page 327 For secrecy ibid. For warranty ibid. For distinction ibid. For security ibid. For ratification ib. c. Seal of the Covenant and the Seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Seals Sacraments Sacraments are Seales Page 326 Serving for ratification of promises Page 328 Objections answered ibid. c. The whole use and office of Sacraments is by way of signe and seal Page 352 Reasons confirming it Page 354 355 Humane authorities produced Page 356 Variety of opinions about the working of Sacraments Page 359 c. Propositions tending to cleer the truth Page 363 Texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments higher of two sorts Page 372 1. Such where no Sacrament is mentioned ib. 2. Such where faith is required to the attainment of the effect Page 376 Objections answered Page 380 Sermon Formally so called not essentiall to a Sacrament Page 61 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be concionatorium or consecratorium Page 57. c. Scripture Must not be left to hunt after humane authorities Page 111 Scripture order of words no foundation for arguments Page 170 Scripture characters of men in grace are laid down for men to try themselves by Page 189 Signe What it is Page 38 c. Severall kinds of Signes Page 39 Naturall ibid. Prodigious Page 41 c. By institution Page 42 Rules for the right understanding of naturall signes Page 39 Remote causes are no signes ibid. Partiall causes are no signes Page 40 Natural signes when causes work unavoidably Page 41 Sacramentall signes Sacraments are signes Page 38 Sacraments are to be defined as signes Page 321 Objections answered ibid. c. Sacramentall signes Their properties Page 43 Externall and sensible ibid. Visible Page 43 44 Analogicall Page 45 Rituall Page 46 Distinguishing Page 46 47 65 c. Congregating Page 47 48 Engaging ibid. Remembrancing ibid. 49 Ratifying Page 49 Gods condescension in Sacramental signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Sin All sins are not Spirit-grieving sins Page 392 Notable sins in regenerate persons followed with many dangers Page 394 They cloud assurance of glory ibid. They bring an inaptitude on the soul to enter into glory Page 395 They bring under wrath and displeasure though they work not into a state of wrath Page 396 They are such an obstruction in the way of bliss that they bring a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance Page 397 Rules to discern the nature and quality of sins Page 399 The more of light the less of weakness and the crime more hainous ibid. The less of temptation the more of sin and the less of weakness ibid. c. The more of deliberation and conviction the more of sin Page 400 The more opportunity for duty the greater the neglect Page 401 Severall sorts of sins that are Covenant forfeitures Page 402 c. Sincerity Of heart in covenanting not of the essence and being of a Covenant Page 131 Spirit The seal of the Covenant and the seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Bloud and Spirit way be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 The acts of the Spirit in a believing soul are ascribed to faith Page 463 The Spirit works not in us respective to Salvation after faith is implanted without us ibid. The Spirit hath a further hand in justification or pardon of sin then alone by enditing the Gospell Page 483 Scriptures and humane authorities produced for it ibid. The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in Sanctification Page 452 Lords Supper A privilege of the Church visible Page 187 It is not limited to