rased out those Scriptures which ascribe our Justification unto Christ alone For my own part I see no such cause he hath to triumph unless it be in the dejection of those feeble consequences which he himself hath devised to make our Doctrine odious which we have shewn before are as remote from our principles as the East is from the West I confess neither he nor I are competent Judges in our own cause let the Godly Reader judge between us and hold fast that which comes nearest to the Analogy of Faith I shall now address my self to sâ—an the force of those Arguments he hath brought to prove That the Elect are not justified in the sight of God before they believe CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges first Argument against Justification before Faith taken from the Nature of Justification is answered HIs first Argument is drawn from the Nature of Justification Which sayes he is the absolution of a sinner from condemnation by that gracious sentence and signal promise in the Gospel He that believes shall not enter into condemnation The Argument he hath cast into this frame If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word which is a legal discharge of the sinner whilest he remains in unbelief Ergo. Whereunto I answer 1. That his Assumption is false for the Gospel or New Covenant is a published or declared discharge of all the Elect. The sum of which is That God hath transacted all their sins upon Jesus Christ and that Christ by that offering of his hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby the whole spiritual Israel are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were Typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Levit. 16.30 Now though they cannot plead it before they believe yet is it a real discharge because it frees them from condemnation As a Pardon granted by a Prince is a legal discharge though the Malefactor doth not know of it 2. The Sequel or Consequence of the Major stands upon a sandy bottom a postulatum that will not be granted to wit That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act We have shewed before That Justification consists in the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Righteousness which is an act of the Minde or Will of God It is a gross non sequitur God doth not declare his non-imputing of sin to his Elect before they believe Ergo He doth account and esteem them sinners The Question is not whether this gracious sentence of Absolution be declared but whether it be not in the Brest of God before it be declared or whether this immanent act of God doth not secure the sinner from condemnation If so then there is Justification though there be no published declared sentence As Gods saying in his heart That he would never drown the world any more Gen. 8.21 did sufficiently secure the world from the danger of an other deluge though he had never declared it so Gods will not to punish secures a person from condemnation though this security be not declared § 2. They are but feeble proofs wherewith he hath backed hâ—s Assertion That Justification is onely by the promise as a declared discharge We are not says he as if he saâ—e in Pythagoras his Chair to conceive of Justification as an internal immanent act of God resolving privately in his own Brest not to prosecute his right against a sinner but it must be some declared promulged act c. But why are we not to conceive of it as an internal immanent act Instead of proofs he gives us Illustrations which may pass in a Sermon but are too weak for a dispute As sin saith he is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5.13 So neither is Righteousness imputed without Law Whereunto I answer 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it For by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3.20 7.9 Gal. 3.19 Yet it follows not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed For what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish ere ever the Law was given The scope of the Scripture alleadged Rom. 5.13 is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently That there was a Law before the Law of Moses else men could not have sinned as it is confessed they did As the Law it self had a being in the Minde of God so the issues thereof were determined by him before it was declared 2. There is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but Righteousness is the gift of God A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or Representative which necessarily supposeth a Law For sin is the transgression of a Law 1 Iohn 3.4 But a man may be righteous before he doth works of Righteousness and consequently before any Law is given him to obey Indeed if we were made righteous by our own personal Inherent Righteousness then our Justification would necessarily require a Law for as much as all our Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law But seeing we are justified by the imputation of anothers Righteousness what need is there that a Law should first be given unto us § 3. Mr. W. goes on As our condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth and therefore he whom God in his Eternal Decree hath purposed to save may yet for the present be under the sentence of condemnation as the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal Life Chap. 1.4 were yet sometimes the children of wrath Chap. 2.3 So on the contrary our Justification must be some declared promulged act or sentence of God which may stand good in Law for the discharge of the sinner against condemnation We say that condemnation being taken not for the Will of God to punish or to inflict upon a person the desert of his sin but for the thing willed or for the curse it self it comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam So our Justification being taken not for the Internal Act of Gods will not to punish but for the benefit willed to us by that Internal Act to wit Our actual discharge from the Law descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made
of the Law and by the just judgement of God proceeding against them according to the tenor of the first Covenant So that God need not go about to entangle men who were before fast bound in the shackles of sin and misery the Law condemned them sufficiently though their contempt of the Gospel will aggravate their condemnation Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the Elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that believe not by reason of the sentence of the Law which had passed upon them § 4. 2 His next Allegation is as impertinent as this Verse 36. of the same Chapter He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him It is evident that our Saviour speaks there of a final unbeliever and not of an Elect person before believing the phrase of the abiding of Gods wrath is applicable to none but unto Reprobates who do perish for ever And to say that the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborn the Spirit to serve our turn § 5. 3 That which seemes to speak most fully to his cause is Ephes. 2.3 where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal life Chap. 1.4 That they were by nature the children of wrath even as others To which I answer 1 That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they were under Condemnation before Conversion 2 The Emphasis of this Text I conceive lies in this clause by nature So then the Apostles meaning is That by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam from whom by natural propagation they descended They were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God Yet this hindered not but that by Grace they might be the Children of his Love for so all the Elect are whilest they are in their blood and pollution Ezek. 16.4 8. The Lord calls them his Sons and Children before Conversion Isai. 43.6 53.11 8.18 Heb. 2.9 For it is not any Inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his Children Ephes. 1.5 Rom. 8.29 John 17.6 Believers considered in themselves and as they come from the loyns of Adam are sinful and cursed Creatures as vile and wretched as the Devil himself though in Christ they behold themselves made righteous and blessed It is granted That Elect Infants have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them though they know it not and I see no reason that can be given why it should not be imputed to the rest of the Elect before Conversion § 6. Although the Elect are freed from wrath and condemnation yet in some sence they may be said to be under it in regard that the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4.15 In which respect it is called A ministration of wrath and of death 2 Cor. 3.7 9. The wrath of God hath a threefold acception in the Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable Will of God to deal with a person or persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins shall deserve And in this sence none but Reprobates are under wrath who for this cause are said to be hated of God 2 It notes the threatnings and comminations of the Law Rom. 1.18 Psal. 6.1 Hos. 11.9 Jonas 3.9 c. 3 It notes the execution of those threatnings or the punishments threatned Ephes. 5.6 Luke 21.23 Matth. 3.7 Now in the first and third sence the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath God never intended to deal with them according to the tenor of the Law nor doth he inflict upon them the least evil upon that account Christ having freed and delivered them from the Curse But as wrath is taken in the second sense for the comminations and threatnings of the Law so they are under wrath till they are able to plead their discharge and release by the Gospel The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their Consciences no less then others and therefore the Law is compared to a rigid School-Master which never ceaseth to whip and lash them until they flye unto Christ. For though he hath freed them from the Curse yet the Lord sees it fit they should for a while be held under the Pedagogy and Ministration of the Law that they may learn to prize the Redemption which they have by Christ Gal. 3.22 The Lord when he published the Law in Sinai as the Apostle observes Gal. 3.17 Did not repent him of his promise made Typically with Abraham and his Seed but really with Christ and the Elect in him But sayes he the Law was added because of transgression i. e. To discover their sinfulness and misery by nature and to render the Grace of the promise more desirable Vers. 22. As the Saints in the Old Testament were Heirs of the Promise had a real and actual Interest in all the Blessings of the New Covenant whilest their Consciences were whipped and scourged by this merciless School-master so all the rest of the Elect are partakers of the same Grace of Life though the Law doth terrifie and condemn them The threatnings of the Law do not shew what is the state of a person towards God or how God doth account of him but what he is by nature and what he hath deserved should be inflicted upon him which a man cannot chuse but expect and fear till his Conscience be secured by better promises So that I shall not be afraid to say That the Consciences of the Elect before Faith are under wrath and not their Persons and though their Consciences do condemn them yet God doth not But against this Mr. W. hath sundry Exceptions § 7. The condemnation they are under is the condemnation exception 1 of the Law which pronounceth all men guilty not onely in their own conscience but before God Rom. 3.19 Answ. That the voice or sentence of the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law which is the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3.19 20. That all the world might become guilty before God So indeed are all men considered according to what is due by the Law Psal. 143.2 But the Elect as considered in the Grace and forgiveness of God and the perfect satisfaction of Jesus Christ are discharged from this rigorous Court their cause is judged at another Bar. § 8. The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience is exception 2 either true or false if true then it is according to the judgement of God and speaks as the thing is and so God condemns as well as the conscience c. Answ. The testimony of an unbelievers conscience 〈◊〉 true so far as it agrees with the written word if it witnesseth to a
justitia bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his Eternal Election The onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law he did not die to procure a new Will or Affection in the heart of God towards his Elect nor yet to adde any new thing in God which doth perfect and compleat the act of Election as Wallaeus seems to intimate But that God might save us in a way agreeable to his own Justice that he might confer upon us all those Blessings he intended without wrong and violation to his holy Law for God having made a Law that the soul which sinneth should die the Justice and Truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the Elect no less then of other men which they being unable to perform the Son of God became their Surety to bear the Curse and fulfil the Law in their stead God might will unto us sundry benefits which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice As a King may will and purpose the deliverance of his Favorite who is imprisoned for debt yet he cannot actually free him till he hath paid and satisfied his Creditor So though God had an irrevocable peremptory Will to save his Elect yet he could not actually save them till satisfaction was made unto his Justice which being made there is no let or impediment to stop the current of his Blessings As when the Cloud is dissolved the Sun shines forth when the partition wall is broken down they that were separated are again united So the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned Now that Christ by his death removed this let and hinderance the Scripture is as express as can be desired as that he made an end of sin Dan. 9.24 Blotted it out c. Col. 2.14 Took it quite away as the Scape-goat Levit. 16.22 John 1.29 And slew the enmity between God and us Ephes. 2.16 See Verses 13 14 15. § 4. Fifthly If it were the Will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately over-spread his posterity then it was his Will that the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods Elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle shews Rom. 5.14 both of them were heads and roots of mankinde Now the sin of Adam did immediately over-spread his posterity All men sinned in him before ever they committed any actual sin Rom. 5.12 14. And therefore the Righteousness of Christ descended immediately upon all the Elect for their Justification Rom. 5.17 18. Sixthly If the Sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the Typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the Sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered The reason of the consequence is because the Real Sacrifice is not less efficacious then the Typical Heb. 9.14 But those Legal Sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part Levit. 16.30 § 5. Seventhly If it be the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without any condition performed by them then it was his Will that it should be so for all of them the reason is because the Scripture makes no difference between persons in the communication of this Grace The free gift saith the Apostle came upon all men i. e. In omnes praedestinatos to Justification of life to wit by the gracious imputation of God But it is the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without conditions performed by them viz. To Elect Infants or else they are not reconciled and consequently they cannot be saved Now if any shall say That God hath a peculiar way of reconciling and justifying Infants or of communicating unto them the Benefits of Christs death let them clear it up from Scripture let them shew us the Text that saith God gives Salvation unto Infants in one manner and to men in another to the one freely and to the others upon conditions If they say Infants have the Seed or Habit of Faith the Scripture will contradict them which affirmeth 1 That they have no knowledge at all either of good or evil Deut. 1.39 And that they cannot so much as discern between the right and the left hand And if so how can they who conceive not of things Natural understand those things that are Heavenly and Spiritual And therefore sayes Augustine If we should go about to prove that Infants know the things of God who as yet know not the things of men our own senses would confute us And can there be Faith without knowledge 2 That Faith cometh by hearing of the Word Preached Rom. 10. Now Infants either hear not or if they do they understand not what they hear We have sufficient experience that no Children give any testimony of Faith until they have been taught and instructed Elect Children which are afterwards manifested to be such are as obstinate and unteachable as any others As for the instance of the Baptist that he believed in his Mothers belly because it is said Luke 1.41 That he was filled with the Holy Ghost c. it doth not prove it for as one observes it is not said Credidit in utero but onely exultavit which exultation or springing Divinitùs facta est in Infante non humanitùs ab Infante And therefore it is not to be drawn into an example or urged as a rule to us what to think of other Infants But if any shall say that Infants do perform the conditions of Reconciliation and Salvation by their Parents then it will follow That all the Children of believing Parents are reconciled and justified because they perform the conditions as much for all as they do for one But I suppose no man will say That all the Children of believing Parents are justified we may as well assert works of supererogation as that one is justified by anothers Faith That any Infants are saved it is meerly from the Grace of Election and the free imputation of Christs Righteousness of which all that are elected are made partakers in the same manner § 6. Eighthly If it were the Will of God that Christ should have the whole glory of our reconciliation it was his will that it should not in the least depend upon our works or conditions because that condition or conditions will share with him in the glory of this effect and our Justification would be partly of Grace and partly of Works partly from Christ and partly from our selves Nay it would bee more from our selves then from Jesus Christ seeing that
no man hath his sins remitted before he doth actually believe As for his Allegation out of Mr. Shepherd Mark those men that deny the use of the Law to lead unto Christ if they do not fall in time to oppose some main point of the Gospel c. It doth not touch us for we deny not the use of the Law to bring men unto Christ we look upon the Law as the Ordinance of God to convince men of their sin and misery and thereby to indear to them the Grace of the Gospel Gal. 3.22 24. We say with the Apostle The Law is good if men do use it lawfully i. e. In a way of subserviency and attendance upon the Gospel the better to advance and make effectual the ends thereof And as we deny not this use of the Law so neither doth our asserting That all the Elect before their conversion and Faith stand actually reconciled to God and justified before him obscure the Gospel I doubt not but the judicious Reader will expect a better proof of this charge then Cranfords word Have all those Reverend Divines before mentioned obscured the Gospel What is the Gospel but the glad tidings that Christ is come into the world to save sinners that by his subjecting of himself to the curse of the Law he hath freed them from the curse who were given him by the Father How is this truth obscured by our saying That God did everlastingly will not to punish his Elect and that in Christ he beholds them just and righteous even whilest they are sinful and wicked in themselves Do not they much more obscure the Grace of the Gospel who make it depending upon terms and conditions performed by us then we that affirm it to be free and absolute They that assign no certain and actual effect to the death of Christ or we that say according to the Scripture that all the Elect were thereby freed from the Law delivered from the Curse reconciled unto God made perfect and compleat in the sight of God And therefore though Dr. Downham doth call it A strange Assertion I shall not be ashamed to own it The Lord complains That the great things of his Law were counted strange Hos. 8.12 We read in Eusebius That the Christian Faith though it were from the beginning was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 New and strange The multitude cast this aspersion upon our Saviours Doctrine Mark 1.27 and the Athenians upon Paul Acts 17.19 20. The imputation of novelty and new fangledness hath been commonly cast upon the truths and ways of God Many things are new in respect of Observation which are not so in themselves We have known that godly men have looked upon some things as very strange which in tract of time have been generally imbraced Dr. Downham no doubt thought it strange that any godly man should say the Angels of the Seven Churches were not Diocesan Bishops and yet I believe Mr. Cr. is not of his Opinion If it were the Doctors meaning That this Assertion of Justification before Faith was never heard to come from the mouth of a godly man before Pemble either his memory was very weak or his charity was too much straitned He could not be ignorant of what hath been alledged out of Calvin Zaâ—che Parker Chamier one of those passages in Chamier before mentioned is cited by the Doctor in that very Book which Mr. Cr. quotes He knew likewise That all our old Protestant Divines have defined Justifying Faith to be a certain perswasion and full assurance of the pardon of our sins from whence it must inevitably follow That pardon of sin precedes our Faith for every object is before its act And as strange as it seemed unto this Doctor he himself sayes little less for in answer to Bellarmine who would prove that a man may be justified without special Faith he granteth It is true in respect of our Justification in the sight of God which special apprehension or application of Christ saith he though scorned by Papists yet it is of all Graces the most comfortable most profitable most necessary most comfortable for the very life of this life is the assurance of a better life most necessary because without this special receiving of Christ first by apprehension and then by application we can have no other saving Grace How can we love God or our Neighbor for his sake how can we hope and trust in him how can we rejoyce or be thankful to him if we be not perswaded of his love and bounty towards us Most profitable because from it all other Graces do proceed and according to the measure of it is the measure of them c. Doubtless That Faith to which these properties do belong doth best merit the name of Justifying Faith So then according to this Doctors Judgement the Assertion is not so strange as true § 6. Mr. Cr. goes on and much faster then a good pace This Opinion says he that the Elect are actually reconciled to God before they believe is confuted in this Treatise and proved contradictory to Scripture fit onely 1 to sow pillows under the elbows of prophane men 2 to overthrow the comfort of Believers destroying the ground nature and end of Faith How solidly it is confuted the Reader will see anon when the weight of his proofs shall come to be examined I doubt not but an impartial Judge will acquit it both from being contradictory to Scripture or guilty of those horrid Consequences which he hath cast upon it I marvel that so rational a man as Mr. Cr. is held to be should say That all this charge is proved part of which is not so much as mentioned by Mr. W. who is liberal enough of his criminations which makes me to think That he writ his Epistle before he read his Author or at least That he is a man that will be satisfied with slender Proofs against persons and Doctrines which he doth not fancy It is true Mr. W. hath endeavored to obtrude upon us some ugly Consequences which are as remote from our Doctrine as Earth is from Heaven Mr. Cr. is not ignorant how much peaceable and prudent men have disliked this practise of wyer-drawing mens Opinions and raking absurdities out of them per nescio quas fidiculas consequentiarum as Bishop Davenant expresseth it By small threds of consequencies which they themselves do disclaim and abhor from their whole heart whereupon sayes that Learned Bishop Good men ought to deal more fairly then to fasten an Heretical sence on other mens words when the Writers themselves which are the best Expounders of their own words can and use to reduce them to a Catholick sence Mr. Cr. knows That the very same Consequences are fathered upon the Doctrine of absolute Election Justification by Faith alone and the certain perseverance of true Believers The Semi-Pelagians of old would have forced this inference from Austins Opinion of absolute
Predestination If Gods decree be absolute Nemo vigilet nemo jâ—junet nemo libidini contradicet c. The Papists say It follows That if we be justified by Faith onely then we need not do good works The Remonstrants and their followers say That if a Believer cannot fall from Grace then need he not fear to commit any sin whatsoever Nor do these Consequences flow any whit more naturally from our Tenent then they do from these Doth it follow That because all the Elect are by means of Christs death actually reconciled unto God and freed from the condemnation of the Law That therefore men may live as they list that they need not hear believe and obey the Gospel How doth this sow pillows under mens elbows or lull asleep in security more then the Doctrine of absolute Election Seeing as all men are not elected so neither are all men reconciled unto God nor can any man know That he is elected and reconciled unto God but by and thorow Faith which Faith is wrought in men by the Preaching of the Word and doth certainly produce a holy life § 7. I confess I am yet to seek of the Reason of his other Deduction That this Assertion of actual reconciliation before Faith overthrows the comfort of true Believers and destroyes the ground nature use and end of Faith Is it an uncomfortable Doctrine to tell men That we are not sharers with Christ in effecting of our peace with God and in procuring the pardon of our sins and that Christ hath finished this work before we knew it Is it not much more comfortable to poor souls that Christ hath absolutely and by himself obtained forgiveness for sinners then that he hath procured this Grâ—â—e but conditionally upon condition we perform such and such 〈◊〉 for which we have no strength or ability in our selves Whence have the Saints drawn all their comfort Surely not from Faith or any other work of theirs but by Faith from Christ and from the perfection and al-sufficiency of his Sacrifice Not onely the Protestants but the Papists themselves though in the Schools they contend for the dignity and congruity of works that they are Moral causes or necessary conditions of Justification and Salvation yet on their death beds they utterly renounce them they exhort men in distress of Conscience to roul themselves wholly upon Jesus Christ. In a form prescribed for visiting of the sick the Priest or Minister was enjoyned to put these Questions to the sick party Dost thou believe to come to glory not by thy own merits but by the vertue and merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ And dost thou believe That our Lord Jesus Christ did die for our salvation and that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merit of his passion Whereunto when the sick person answered affirmatively I do believe it the Priest is bid to exhort him in this wise Go to therefore as long as thy soul remaineth in thee place thy whole confidence in his death onely have confidence in no other thing commit thy self wholly to his death with this alone cover thy self wholly intermingle thy self wholly wrap thy whole self in his death c. Dangerous saith Bernard is the habitation of those that trust in their own works And in another place Ubi tuta c. What safe â—est or security can the weak soul finde but in the wounds of his Saviour As he is mighty to save so dwell I there with most safety Parisiensis in his Book of Divine Rhetorick Thou must beware saith he in thy striving with God that thou dost not build upon a weak foundation which he doth that trusts in his own works Gerson often inculcates this That before the tribunal of God we must onely plead the merits of Christ Bishop Gardner though he would not have this gap to be opened to the people yet he acknowledged it to be the most comfortable Doctrine to such as were in his condition he being then on his death bed Which is the more to be observed because in his life time he had stickled so much for our Adversaries Conditional Justification Bellarmine himself when he had written divers Books for Justification by Inherent Righteousness in the end concludes That for fear of vain-glory and by reason of the uncertainty of our own works Tutissimum est c. It is the safest way to place all our trust in the Mercy of God and of Jesus Christ so that we may say as Moses Their rock is not as our rock our Enemies themselves being Judges Deut. 32.31 § 8. Mr. Cr. hath not the least reason to charge us with destroying the Ground of Faith for the Ground of Faith is either Fundamentum Quod or Fundamentum Quo. Material and Personal or else Doctrinal and Ministerial We say with all true Christians That the onely Material or Personal Foundation whereupon a poor soul can build securely for Life and Justification is Jesus Christ Now the Doctrinal Foundation whereby our Faith is united to the former we affirm with Calvin and many more that it is Gratuita misericordiae in Christo promissio The free promise of Mercy in opposition to those Conditional Promises which send men partly to Christ and partly to their own works and therefore our Adversaries are much more obnoxious to this Censure of Destroying the Ground of Faith who allow it no other support then Conditional Promises whereby mens hope and confidence is made to lean more upon themselves then it doth on Christ much more upon their own works then it doth upon his Righteousness The forementioned Author hath well observed That if our Faith doth relie never so little upon our own works it cannot possibly stand fast that soul will never attain to any setled assurance of his Salvation that builds his Faith upon such a sandy foundation § 9. The nature of Faith receives not the least prejudice by our Doctrine for if we define it as most of our old Protestant Divines have done Certa indubitata persuasio A firm and certain perswasion of the favor of God and the pardon of our sins it confirms our Tenent for mens sins must be pardoned before they can believe it or else of necessity they must believe a lie All men know that the object doth precede the act unless it be when the act gives a being to the object Or if we make it to be fiducia the trust or reliance of the soul upon Jesus Christ it receives no small encouragement from this consideration That Christ hath finished whatsoever was necessary by Divine appointment for the Justification of sinners not expecting the least condition to be performed by us for that end Our Faith is never so impregnable as when it rests entirely upon Jesus Christ. And as for the ends and uses of Faith which are cheifly to give us boldness and
if they had clave the Cart before the Ark was taken down which could not be In 2 Tim. 1.9 it is said God hath saved us and called us yet I suppose Mr. W. will not say That men are saved before they are called So though Vocation be set before Justification yet it doth not follow that it precedes it in order of Nature 2 The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these Benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked unto our Predestination and that it is Impossible either sin or affliction should make them miserable whom God hath chosen 3 I see no inconvenience at all in saying That the Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our Consciences which some learned men do make the formale of Justification and in this respect I shall grant him That Justification is a consequent of Vocation § 6. Mr. Woodbridges next Allegation is from Rom. 4.24 Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe Ergo It was not imputed before we did believe I answer That the consequence is not necessary for this Particle if is used sometimes declaratively It doth not always propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but sometimes it serves to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong Descriptions are taken from Effects and Consequences as well as from the Causes or Antecedent Conditions As for instance If a man saith the Apostle purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honor 2 Tim. 2.21 The Papists infer from hence That a man is made a vessel of honor by purging himself c. Our Protestant Divines do answer That the place proves not that a man is hereby made or becomes a vessel of honor but that hereby he is manifested and known to be a vessel of honor So Heb. 3.6 Whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end Which we are not to understand as if these things did make us to be the house of God but that hereby we appear and approve our selves to be the house of God This Conjunction if is many times annexed unto the Marks and Cognizances of such as shall be saved or are happy which do shew Non propter quid beand◠sunt vel servandi sed quales beati sunt quales servandi Not upon what conditions but what manner of persons are finally saved I see no reason but it may be so understood in this place his Righteousness is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that we whether Jews or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to believe and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can believe but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. The Lord works Faith in none but in them to whom he hath imputed the Righteousness of his Son § 7. The other Scriptures he hath brought conclude as weakly against us as any of the former as Acts 10.43 Thorow his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins And Acts 26.18 That they may receive forgiveness of sins who are sanctified by Faith with Acts 13.39 By him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses To which says Mr. W. might be added multitudes of other places I confess his Concordance would have furnished him with many such places but no more to the purpose then these he hath cited which though they affirm That Believers are justified yet they deny not the Justification of the Elect before believing In the former it is Whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sins it is not By believing we obtain remission of sins or God doth not discount mens sins unto them till they do believe The giving of remission and the receiving of remission are two things the former is Gods act who is the onely Justifier the latter is ours the former is properly Justification and not the latter though it be called so in a passive and improper sence We know a Prince pardons a malefactor when he gives his consent That the Sentence of the Law should be reversed and confirms it with his Hand and Seal This Pardon is valid in Law and secures the offender from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good while after So a Father gives and bequeaths an Estate to his Childe that is an Infant which by the donation of the Father belongs to the Childe though the Childe do not receive and enjoy it till he comes to age So God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their sins unto them Though no man doth receive and enjoy this Grace till he doth believe we obtain remission of sins by Christ alone but we receive it by Faith § 8. In the 13 of the Acts 39 the Apostle shews the excellency of the Gospel above the Law or the priviledge of the Saints in the New Testament above them that lived under the Old Administration Who saith he are justified from all things c. There was a cleansing and purgation of sin provided in the Law but not like unto that which is revealed in the Gospel For 1 the Law did not cleanse them from all sins for some sins it allowed of no Sacrifice at all as for Blasphemy sins of presumption c. But now the Blood of that Sacrifice which is exhibited in the Gospel cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Mark 3.28 2 Those Sacrifices made them clean but in an External Typical manner as To the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 they could not make them perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 10.12 Whereas the cleansing which is made by the Blood of Christ is Spiritual and Internal It purgeth mens consciences from dead works Heb. 9.14 They that are purged herewith have no more conscience of sin de jure if not de facto Chap. 10.2 They have the answer of a good conscience toward God q. d. They can plead not guilty 1 Pet. 3.21 3 The legal cleansing was by Sacrifice after Sacrifice Heb. 10.3 Whereas Christ by one Sacrifice once offered hath taken away all the sins of his people or as it is in Daniel hath made an end of sin So that here is nothing at all of the time of our Justification though he affirms That they that believe are thus perfectly justified yet it follows not from this or any other Text That the Elect are not justified before they believe and much less That a man is justified by the gratious act or habit of Faith § 9. Mr. W. Pag. 2. gives his Reader our Sence of these Scriptures The onely Answer saith he which is given to these and the like Texts is this That
if it had been performed in their own persons Now if Faith and new Obedience be that Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified then doth the Gospel also propound for our Justification a Righteousness inherent in us and performed by us and so consequently there remains no material difference between the Law and Gospel especially seeing the same duties are prescribed in both If any shall say That the Gospel precepts do not require such exact and perfect Obedience as those in the Law their Assertion will want a Proof nay these and such like Scriptures do prove it to be utterly false 1 John 3.16 Matth. 5 44 45. 1 Pet. 1.15 16. A defect in degrees is a sin against the Gospel as well as against Legal precepts To these I might adde all those Arguments which our Divines have used against Justification by Inherent Righteousness but this may suffice to shew That Faith and Obedience to other Gospel precepts is not that Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God § 11. Now briefly my sence of this Proposition We are justified by Faith is no other then that which hath been given by all our Ancient Protestant Divines who take Faith herein Objectively not Properly and explain themselves to this effect We are justified from all sin and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ who is the sole Object or Foundation of our Faith or whose Righteousness we receive and apply unto our selves by Faith Yet I say it doth not follow That it was not applied to us by God or that God did not impute Righteousness to us before we had Faith We that believe are justified by the Righteousness of Christ it is no good Consequence Ergo We were not justified in the sight of God before we did believe but now that we may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak the truth in love I shall give the Reader a clearer account of my Judgement concerning this Matter in the following Chapter CHAP. VII Wherein the Question about the time of our Justification is distinctly stated and these two Propositions A man is justified before Faith and A man is justified by Faith reconciled THat we may avoid mistakes I shall briefly declare 1 What we do understand by Justification 2 What by being justified in the sight of God And 3 when we are justified in the sight of God As touching the first of these It would be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a needless expence of time to enter upon a large discourse concerning the signification of the word and the difference between Justification and Sanctification We all know that Justification in general is the making of one just and righteous Now there are two ways whereby a person is made or constituted righteous viz. by Infusion or by Imputation 1. By Infusion when the Habitual Qualities of Righteousness are wrought in a person by any means whatsoever and these habits are put forth in a universal and perfect Conformity to the rule of Righteousness And thus no man was ever justified since the fall for as the Apostle speaks Rom. 3.10 There is none righteous no not one no man whether regenerate or unregenerate is righteous with Inherent Righteousness neither his Internal Habits nor External Actions are exactly commensurate to the rule of Righteousness the Church acknowledgeth that her righteousnesses i. e. Her best compleatest and exactest Righteousness were as filthy rags Isa. 64.6 And the Apostle accounted his own Righteousness but loss and dung in reference to his Justification Phil. 3.8 9. 2. By Imputation or gracious Acceptation as when God doth not account or charge a mans sins upon him but accepts him as just and righteous deals with him as a righteous person or as if he had never sinned This latter is that Justification which we are now treating of God justifies a man when he accounts and esteems him righteous § 2. The next thing propounded was What is meant by the sight of God This phrase is variously used 1 Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts or knowledge of God as Heb. 4.13 All things are naked and manifest in his sight i. e. God hath a clear and distinct knowledge of all things whatsoever And thus a man is justified in the sight of God when God knows and esteems him to be just and righteous 2 The sight of God relates more peculiarly to his Legal justice for although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence Seeing and Knowing are all one as Job 28.24 He looketh to the ends of the Earth and seeth under the whole Heaven i. e. He knows and takes notice of all things both in Heaven and Earth yet in articulo justificationis in the Doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other God is never said to cover blot out or wash away the sins of his people out of his knowledge but out of his sight Levit. 16.30 Psal. 32.2 and Rom. 4.2 7. Psal. 51.9 God sees their sins for whom his Law is not satisfied Nehem. 4.5 In regard that his truth and justice doth oblige him to take notice of and punish them for their sins Again He sees not their sins for whom he hath received a full compensation because it is contrary to justice to enter into judgement against a person who either by himself or surety hath made satisfaction for his offence And in this respect God is said not to see the sins of his people which yet he knows to be in them which doth not detract from his omnisciency but exceedingly magnifies his Justice and that perfect atonement which Christ hath made in their behalf so that all that are cloathed with the Innocency Righteousness and Satisfaction of Christ they are justified in the sight of God i. e. Divine Justice cannot charge them with any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve but contrariwise he beholds them as persons perfectly righteous and accordingly deals with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight 3 A late Divine of singular worth hath another Construction of this phrase In the sight of God who observes that the word sight though it be for the form active yet for the substance of it it is rather passive and therefore it is not attributable to God as it is to us but in God it signifies his making of us to see and we are said to be justified in his sight when he makes it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified But with due respect to that learned man whom I highly honor for his worthy Labors I conceive this phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinction of Justification in foro Des in foro conscientiae which hath been made use of by all our Protestant Divines and whereof there is great need in this present
controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan◠amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
man any thing which is neither in the word nor necessarily deduced from it the testimony is false and sinful For understanding whereof we must know that there is a threefold act of conscience about sin the first When it witnesseth to us concerning the desert of sin the second When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin or the sins which we have done the third is When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God Now if Conscience doth bear witness to a man concerning what he hath done and what is his desert in so doing it doth but its duty Rom. 1.34 But if it tell a man that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned Creature and must perish everlastingly such a Conscience is both penally and sinfully evil The Conscience of an unbeliever accuseth truly when it convinceth him of sin that Death eternal is the wages of it and that by the Law he can expect no other But if it proceeds to tell a man that his case is desperate and without hope it pronounceth a false sentence For though he be a Reprobate and consequently the sentence is true in it self yet it is a false testimony in him for as much as conscience witnesseth that which it cannot certainly know how much more is it a false testimony when the Conscience of an Elect person doth make such a conclusion against himself That God hath absolutely condemned him to Hell torments it is false in it self and false in him If it were a true sentence it were then impossible he should be saved For condemnation as Mr. W. confesseth a little after is opposed to Salvation and the Law saith not Now cursed but cursed for ever Matth. 25.41 And therefore I say If the Conscience of any sinner either Elect or Reprobate shall in this life pass such an absolute and peremptory sentence against himself that the curse of the Law shall be inflicted upon him he sins both against the Law and the Gospel 1 Against the Law by applying the Ministery thereof to a wrong end and not as God hath intended it for the Law was not given ex primaria intentione to condemn men but to further and advance the Ministery of the Gospel that men seeing what they are by nature and what they have deserved might flee for refuge unto Jesus Christ. Now when men hearing the Curse of the Law conclude that surely this must be their portion and that it is never the neerer for them that the Son of God hath shed his Blood for sinners they sin against the Law in regard the end of the Law is to cause them to flee unto Christ so that by making the sentence of the Law absolute they quite cross the design and intention of God in giving the Law 2 They deny the very tenor and substance of the Gospel which is That in Christ there is life eternal for sinners and for ought that they can know to the contrary for them as well as for others § 9. Though we say That the sentence of condemnation which men pass upon themselves in this life is false and erroneous yet are we innocent of those ugly consequences which Mr. W. would thrust upon us Of blinding mens eyes and hardening their hearts and searing up their consciences c. Which are more likely to follow upon an indiscreet application of the Law and mens making the voice thereof the definitive sentence of God upon all Transgressors which is the ready way to make men quite desperate and to harden their hearts in unbelief We hold it necessary That the Law should be preached to unbelievers in it◠strictness rigor and inexorable severity that they may see there is no hope for them at all by the works of the Law yet we would have it preached as an Appendant to the Gospel not to drive men to despair but to believe and to flee to that Sanctuary which is opened in the Gospel whereas if it be published alone and as an absolute sentence it is a bar to Faith For if God doth condemn men who shall justifie them Christs merits will not save them whom God doth condemn witness Reprobate Men and Angels Unto whom there remaineth no sacrifice at all for sin § 10. His third Exception is That the condemnation with exception 3 which the unbeliever is condemned is expressed John 3.36 by the abiding of Gods wrath upon him Therefore we say no Elect unbeliever is condemned of God because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him The condemnation wherewith the unbeliever i. e. The final unbeliever is condemned is indeed the abiding of Gods wrath that is he shall die everlastingly for it is opposed to everlasting life but what is this to the Elect who are not final unbelievers § 11. His fourth and last is That the condemnation of unbelievers exception 4 is opposed to Salvation John 3.17 And surely the condemnation that is opposed to Salvation is more then the condemnation of a mans own conscience c. I answer 1. That the condemnation opposed to Salvation is damnation and then by Mr. Woodbridges Argument the Elect because they are sometimes unbelievers must all be damned But 2. this rather shews as I said before that by him that believeth not is meant he that believeth not at all CHAP. XII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges third fourth and fifth Arguments are answered HIs third Argument is drawn from the several comparisons by which Justification by Faith is illustrated Sometimes it is compared to the Israelites looking up to the Brazen Serpent for healing Joh. 3.14 Numb 21 8. As then they were not first healed and then looked up to see what healed them but they did first look upon the Serpent and then they were healed Even so it is the Will of God that whosoever seeth and believeth the Son shall be justified John 6.40 Sometimes Faith is compared to eating and Justification to the nourishment which we receive by our meat c. To which I answer 1. That comparisons prove nothing unless they are framed by the Holy Ghost for the thing in question Now I utterly deny that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost in either of these comparisons to shew in what order or method we are justified in the sight of God 2. The stinging of the fiery Serpents did plainly shadow forth the effects of the Law in Conscience The Law by revealing the wrath of God against all unrighteousness stings and wounds mens consciences for which cause it is called a fiery Law Deut. 33.2 To wit from its effects because it doth as it were kindle a fire in mens bones they have no rest in their souls until these wounds are healed Now as the Israelites when they were stung by those fiery Serpents found no ease till they looked up unto the Brazen Serpent So the soul that is smitten and wounded by the Ministery of the Law will never finde rest
Faith in the propitiation and atonement of Jesus Christ whereby their defects and obliquities are done away § 6. 4 Whereas he addes That it was a poor answer which I gave to Mr. Good That God was well pleased with his Elect whilest unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy 1. As far as it concerns my self I shall subscribe to his censure I am poor but he is rich I am empty but he is full But 2. he may be pleased to take notice that a far richer man then himself in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine hath given the very same answer unto this question Mr. Pemble distinguisheth between Gods love to our persons and Gods love to our qualities and actions A distinction which sayes he parents are well skilled in who put a difference between the vices and persons of their children those they hate these they love even when for their vices they do chastise their persons The case sayes he is the same between God and the Elect his love to their persons is from everlasting the same nor doth their sinfulness lessen it nor their sanctity increase it because God in loving their persons never considered them otherwise then as most perfectly holy and unblameable in Jesus Christ c. It is a strange inference which he draws from my words That because I said God is well pleased with the persons of his Elect whilest unregenerate that afterwards he is well pleased with their unregeneracy also He might as well impose this absurdity upon the Prophet that because he saith Ezek. 16.8 Thy time to wit of unregeneracy was the time of love Surely not of their unregeneracy but of their persons then unregenerate that therefore the Prophet supposeth that after their Conversion God did love their unregeneracy or that corruption of nature which remained in them Such quibbles are unbeseeming serious Christians § 7. I shall adde but a word to clear up the difference between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons And first we say that the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Prov. 5.8 Tit. 1.15 Isai. 1.13 c. Secondly Though as the Orthodox acknowledge the best works of the best men have not in them that Inherent purity and holiness which can stand before God without the mediation of their High Priest yet they may be said to be acceptable and pleasing unto God not onely comparatively because they are better then the works of unregenerate men or then the sinful works of such as are regenerate but absolutely and that two ways 1. Abstractly and in themselves or as they ought to be done and thus Faith Hope Love c. are acceptable to God for they are that spiritual worship and service which God looks for and delights in Joh. 4.23 Micah 6.8 Gal. 5.5 6. Phil. 3.3 And in this respect a meek and a quiet spirit is said to be of great price in the sight of God 1 Pet. 3.4 2. Concretely as they are acted by us or do pass through our hands and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Our spiritual sacrifices are made acceptable to God in Jesus Christ or by his taking away the sin and defilement that adheres unto them Our High Priest doth not procure the acceptance of those works which in their whole abstract nature are sinful such as are all our works before Conversion and the fruits of the flesh after Conversion he obtains forgiveness but not acceptance for them But now those works which come from the Spirit of God and are sinful onely through the mixture of our corruptions as sweet water which passeth through a sink these he makes acceptable to the Father by taking away the imperfections and defilements that adhere unto them § 8. The next Scripture which Mr. W. hath brought in by way of objection against himself is Rom. 5.10 When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son To which he answers That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled Against this answer of his I shall offer these Exceptions 1 It offers a manifest violence to the Text to say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled when we have performed the terms and conditions required of us 2 If our reconciliation to God did depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then is it not through the death of Christ that we are reconciled unto God we should be more the cause of our reconciliation then Christ is for he that performs a condition to which a benefit is promised doth more to the procuring of it then he that makes or obtains that conditional grant notwithstanding which he is never awhit the near of the benefit unless his own act do concur 3 The Apostle declares That this reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo Before our believing or the fulfilling of any condition on our part For Believers are not enemies 4 If his meaning were no more then this that it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous and redundant whereas the main emphasis of the Text doth lie therein as is evident from the gradation which the Apostle makes Vers. 6 8 10. 5 The Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.19 affirms That our Saviour did not onely pay the price of our reconciliation but that God did so far accept of or acquiesce therein that upon the payment of it he did not impute our sins unto us i. e. he justified us for the Apostle Rom. 4. defines Justification to be the non-imputation of sin 6 And lastly That which he grants yeelds the matter in question viz. The immediate actual reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ for if Christ by shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid § 9. Secondly To illustrate and confirm his Answer he makes use of Grotius his distinction of three moments or periods of the Will of God 1 at Enmity 2 Appeasable 3 Appeased 1. Before the consideration of the death of Christ God saith he is at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and means of reconciliation 2. After the consideration of the death of Christ and now is the Lord not onely appeasable but doth also
The ground whereon he builds these Assertions is a very sandy foundation to wit That the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of something equivalent and therefore it doth not deliver us ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him I answer 1 Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or tantidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction But 2 Mr. W. might have thought we would expect a better proof then his bare word That the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem seeing the Holy Ghost shews First That Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under He was made under the Law not an other but the very same that we were held in Gal. 4.3 4. Ergo he paid the same debt that we did ow. Secondly That the Curse or punishment which we deserved was inflicted upon him Gal. 3.13 The whole wages or curse that is due to sin is Death and this Christ under-went for us Heb. 2.9 14. Isai. 53.4 5. What is it to die or to bear chastisement for another but to undergo that death which the other should have undergone If it be objected That the death which we deserved is Eternal such as the damned endure our Divines have answered long ago That Christs death was such in pondere though not in specie in potentia though not in actu The dignity of his person raised the price of his temporary sufferings to an equipollency with the other Mr. Owen says well That there is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the Adjuncts or Attendencies Thirdly The laying of our sins upon Christ Isai. 53.6 subjected him to the same punishment which our sins deserved Fourthly If God would have dispenced with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died for if the justice of God would have been satisfied with less then that penalty threatned in the Law he might as well have dispenced with the whole So then his inference That the death of Christ doth not deliver us ipso facto being destitute of this support will fall to the ground of its own accord § 14. M. W. grants That if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a Surety doth not And why not Amongst men there is no difference so the debt be paid it matters not whether it be by the Principal or his Surety the obligation is voide in respect of both The case is the very same between Christ and us Secondly This Exception makes the payment of Christ less efficacious for the discharge of our debt then if it had been made by us whereas it is infinitely more acceptable to God then the most perfect righteousness performed by us But sayes he the payment of a Surety is refusable Not after that he is admitted by the creditor and taken into Bond with or for the principal debtor It is true God might have refused to be satisfied for our debt by a Surety but seeing he ordained his Son to be our Surety and entered into Covenant with him from everlasting to accept his payment on our behalf the debt which he hath fully satisfied cannot be charged again either upon the Party or Surety without manifest injustice But the Father and the Son have agreed between themselves that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe Shew us this agreement and we will yeeld the cause As for the Scriptures which he hath mentioned they speak of no such thing John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me That every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life This Text and others like it do onely shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe The other Text Gal. 5.2 4. is palpably abused to serve his turn The Apostle doth not say Without Faith Christ shall profit us nothing but if we joyn any thing with Christ as necessary to attain Salvation we are not Believers or true Christians our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing and the reason hereof is because these two principles cannot be mixed A mans righteousness before God is either all by Works or all by Christ and therefore whosoever attributes any part thereof to Works he wholly renounceth Christ. At the sixth Verse he attributes that to Faith which he denies unto other Works In Christ Jesus saith he neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but Faith which worketh by love But as the Godly learned have well observed the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the Exercises of Divine Worship in which Christians should be conversant He doth not say That Faith working by love is available to us before God or in the sight of God but in Christ i. e. In the Church or Kingdom of Christ which consists in Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost though neither Faith nor Love are available to justifie us yet they are available i. e. Acceptable to God as acts or duties of Spiritual Obedience they are the onely acceptable service which we can perform to God The last place he hath mentioned is as little to the purpose as the rest 1 Joh. 5.11 He that hath not the Son hath not life True he doth not say That all who have not Faith except final unbelievers have not the Son or any benefit by him § 15. But says Mr. W. if our Adversaries could prove That it was either the Will of God in giving his Son or the Will of Christ in giving himself to the death that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part it were something to the purpose but till this be done which indeed can never be done they were as good say nothing Had not prejudice cast a mist before his eyes the Scriptures which have been brought already would be proof sufficient What clearer Testimony can be desired of the Will of God and of Christ in this point then those Sacred Oracles which shew us First That Christ by the Will of God gave himself a Ransom and Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God in behalf of all the Elect Joh. 6.27 Heb. 5.10 10.9 10. Secondly That this Ransom was alone and by it self a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to Divine Justice for all their sins Heb. 1.3 10.10 12 14. 1 Joh. 1.7 Thirdly That God accepted
it and declared himself well pleased and satisfied therewith Matth. 3.17 Isa. 42.1 Insomuch that God hath thereupon covenanted and sworn that he will never remember their sins nor be wrath with them any more Isa. 43.25 54.9 10. Fourthly That by this Ransom of his they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4.4 3.13 Our Adversaries say That he paid the price for their Redemption but with no intent that they should be immediately and absolutely freed which is often boldly affirmed and as slenderly proved But why not immediately and absolutely There is saith Mr. W. a compact and agreement between the Father and the Son when he undertook to be our Surety that his death should not be available for the actual reconciliation of sinners till they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part Sed hoc restat probandum and I am perswaded will till the worlds end Let them shew us this Covenant and Agreement and we are satisfied till this be done we shall think our proofs sufficient and that the force of those Allegations is no whit invalidated by this Crude Assertion I confess I have heard much talk of this Suspensive Covenant but hitherto I have not had the hap to meet with that Author that hath attempted to make it forth though I might justly be excused from the labor of proving the Negative seeing that it lies upon our Adversaries to clear it up That there was such a compact and agreement made between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but onely upon conditions performed by them Yet because I intend not any other Reply and that Mr. W. may see I do not dissent because he hath said and not proved it which in controverted points were ground enough I shall offer him the Reasons which as yet do sway my Judgement to believe the contrary CHAP. XIV Of the Covenant between the Father and the Son concerning the immediate effects of Christs death THe Reasons which perswade me to believe That there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods Elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon terms and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the will both of God and of Christ that his death should be available to their immediate and actual Reconciliation and Justification without any condition performed on their part Are as followeth First There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none Non est Scriptum Ergo There is no such thing hath hitherto been counted a good Argument amongst Christians It is not possible says Damascene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To speak ought of God beside the things which are divinely manifested in the Old and New Testament If there be any such Covenant let our Adversaries shew it and until they do we shall rest securely in the Negative they must pardon us if we yeeld not up our Faith to unwritten Verities Secondly The Covenant made between God and Christ was That upon giving up of himself to death he should purchase a Seed like the Stars of Heaven i. e. All the Elect of God Isa. 53.10 And our Saviour Christ after that he had tasted death to bring many sons unto glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Heb. 2.13 Behold I and the children whom God hath given me Ergo It was the Will of God that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be the children of Christ and the children of wrath at the same time § 2. Thirdly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate but it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I suppose the Assumption will not be questioned for though the word satisfaction be not used in Scripture yet the thing it self is plainly signified in those phrases of Redemption Atonement Reconciliation and in like manner all those places which declare that Christ died for us and for our sins and offences do imply the same scil That the death of Christ was the payment of our debts and the punishment of our sins that thereby he satisfied the Law for all those wrongs injuries we have done unto it Now the Sequel is evident If God willed that the death of Christ should be a full and satisfactory payment of our demerits then he willed that the discharge procured thereby should be immediate and present for it is contrary to Justice and Equity that a debt when it is payed should be charged either upon the Surety or Principal and therefore though God did will that the other effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of Faith Holiness Glory c. should be sub termino or in Diem not Present but Future yet he willed that this effect of it to wit our discharge from sin and the curse should be present and immediate because it implies a contradiction that the same debt should be paid and not paid that it should be discharged and yet justly chargable As when a man that is a Trespasser or any one for him payes a sum of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespass as also for the purchase of a peece of Land From the trespass his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the Land may be in Diem as the Vendee and Purchaser can agree the Case before us is the very same The death of Christ was both a price and a ransom it served both to pay our debts and to procure our happiness he did thereby purchase both our deliverance from sin and death and all those Spiritual Blessings present and future which we stand in need of The discharge of our debts and deliverance from punishment must needs be present and immediate upon the payment of the price though those Spiritual Blessings be not received till a long time after as God and Christ shall see it fit to bestow them on us To this I shall adde a fourth § 3. Fourthly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the Will of God that they should be immediately reconciled but nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. It was sin alone that made a distance or separation between God and them Isa. 59.2 For which cause it is compared to a cloud or mist Isa. 44.22 to a partition wall Ephes. 2.14 It lay as a block in the way that God could not salva
are justified by performing the conditions required of us which in effect makes men their own Saviours as before 5 He recedes very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never that I finde the exemplary cause of our Justification I shall onely refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker hath written of this matter who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture and the Fathers That Christ no less then the first Adam was made a common person by the Ordination of God and his own voluntary undertaking who took our sins upon him as if they had been his own and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf 6 This expression of his savors rankly both of Pelagianism and Socinianism The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example in communicating sin to his posterity so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation Those words 2 Cor. 5.18 Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ they expounded by his Doctrine and by his Example i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine and by imitatâ—ng his example The Socinians do speak the same Language Christus ideo servator noster dicitur quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit miraculorum patratione sanguinis effusione resurrectione à mortuis quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit Christ is therefore called a Saviour because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod from the mouth of a Protestant Minister § 4. The excuse which he gives for calling our Saviour the exemplary cause of our Justification rather then a common person is both fallacious and impertinent I use saith he the term of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Commonwealth 1. It is fallacious dealing under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that wherein the force of the Argument lay He seems to intimate that the phrases are of equal latitude that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person which is cleerly false for the act of the Exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents which in Law is accounted as if it had been done by them Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors they are not common persons as Adam was to all his posterity In whose loyns saith the Apostle we all sinned and in this respect he is made a figure of Christ Rom. 5.14 Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them for whom he died as Adams sin was accounted unto us when as yet we were not 2. It is impertinent for though Christ be not the effect of them whom he represents yet that hinders not but that his discharge was theirs no less then if he had been chosen by them I can see no reason why the act of God constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head Surety and Common Person to all his Elect should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them as their own choice and election We did not chuse Adam to be our common person and yet his sin was imputed to us so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours § 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection and Inherent Sanctification to render this Argument absurd have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy of Christs Satisfaction for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath It doth not follow that because we did not personally rise with Christ and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin there is not the like reason for these For to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt or satisfaction to the Law of God but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death Again our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end but our Justification is wrought without us and for us Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be crucified with him and to be risen with Christ as well as our Justification yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time and in the same manner It is no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Resurrection though we are not risen as to say Christ hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for as hath been shewn to say a debt is discharged and yet that it is justly chargable implies a contradiction Let the Reader judge whether the Assertion that follows be not much more confident then solid No man living can shew any reason of difference as if he were master of as much Reason as all men living why we may not as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justication is passed before we believe because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences § 6. 2. His next distinction is That Justification is either Causal and Virtual or Actual and Formal We were saith he causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification in the non-imputation of sin Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ even to a full Satisfaction they could not formally be imputed unto us also unless a debt discharged by a Surety can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it It is true a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety before it be discharged but after to neither It is granted by all Orthodox Writers That our Saviour by giving himself to death made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now I say the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor unless we speak of an outward formality such as is by an Acquittance which serves but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor who otherwise would deny the payment or else against the ignorance of the debtor who being not at the payment might still look upon himself as a debtor and lyable
that I cannot but wonder what hee means to shelter his Opinion under the protection of it I must needs say that after a most serious perusing of his papers I cannot be perswaded to be of his mind to think that these places are contradictory to the purpose for which I brought them but rather that they doe give in full evidence to the Proposition which I was to prove viz. That the spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us But how doth Mr. W. prove the contradiction We shall find saith he in these words three things of distinct consideration the Conclusion of which is the only support of this feeble Argument I cannot but wonder and so I dare say doth the impartiall Reader that Mr. W. should say the Text is contradictory to my purpose and yet confesse that it affords support unto my Argument for though no more then that which he cals the Conclusion of the Text doth afford it shelter yet is that sufficient to clear it from the guilt of a contradiction But what are the three things which he finds in these Texts to ground his charge on 1. says he There is the matter and blessings of the Covenant on Gods part I will be their God and they shall be my People in which words as many blessings temporall and eternall are promised so peculiarly pardon of sin c. 2. There is expressed the bond and condition of it on our part and that is Faith which is signified in those words of putting Gods Laws in our minds and writing them in our hearts In these two things is the tenor and formality of the new Covenant they that beleeve the Lord will be their God and they shall be his People But 3. says he there is also a promise that God will worke this condition by which men shall have an interest in this Covenant and a right and title to the blessings of it I will put my Laws into their minds i. e. I will give them faith which Faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant already made but as the means by which we are brought into Covenant and thereby invested in a right to all the blessings of it c. should I grant all that he saith yet would it not one whit weaken our Assertions that this Covenant is made with us who are meant by the house of Israel and that the Spirit which works Faith is promised in this Covenant which Mr. W. cannot deny though hee would thrust it behind the doore saying that it is promised in the Covenant but not as a part of the Covenant I might easily shew that there are not so many lines as mistakes in this short discourse I professe I cannot but wonder at his boldnesse that he durst for his advantage to wrest and falsifie the words and tenor of the Covenant excluding the promise of Faith from the matter and blessings of it which is expressed more then once in these few words as in this clause ver 33. I wil put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts by his own confession And in that also ver 34. They shall know me which our Saviour expounds of beleeving in him But to take things as they lie 1 We deny that the whole matter and all the benefits of the Covenant on Gods part are confined to these words I will be their God and they shall be my people for though omne bonum est in summo bono and when this promise is put alone it may comprehend as much as Mr. W. speaks yet when other promises are joyned with it it denotes on â—â—â—ticular blessing either it relates to the formall part of mans happinesse which consists in the fruition and enjoyment of God or the knowledge of our interest and propriety in him Thus I will be their God is as much as they shal know that I am their God and that they are my people Or else I will be their God c. imports as much as I will protect them and they shall worship me But say this Promise be as large as Mr. W. would make it though all blessings temporall and eternal be more generally included in it yet that hinders not but the other promises annexed thereunto doe also exhibit the matter and blessings of the New Covenant The same things often times in the Scripture are expressed first more generally and then more particularly § 10. 2. It is apparently false that in these words I will put my Laws in their mindes and write them in their hearts is expressed the bond and condition of the Covenant on our part for the words are a promise and not a precept the Lord declares what he himselfe will doe for them If Mr. W. sees a condition in these words he hath found more then all the Divines that ever I met with Dr. Twisse his Predecessor in his Answer to Arminius's Preface reciting the tenor of the Covenant as it is in this place of Jeremy Isa. 32. and Ezek. 36. challengeth him to shew vel levissimam mentionem conditionis Dr. Preston speaking of the Covenant which God hath made with his Elect sayes that it is Absolute and not conditionall for which he alleadgeth this place of Jeremy Ezek. 36. c. A learned man of the late Assembly in a Sermon before the Parliament then sitting declared That all the promises of the New Covenant are absolute not onely citra meritum but citra conditionem without any pre-required conditions of us amongst many other places he cites this Text. Besides this I might adde abundance more But I beleeve Mr. Baxter is instar omnium with Mr. W. Now he acknowledgeth that this Text. with the like doth expresse an absolute Covenant Mr. W. might as well say that the bond and condition of the Covenant on our part is expressed in these words they shall be my people or in the other clause I will be their God interpreting it by that of Hosea 2.23 They shall say I am their God which one I remember would have to be the condition of the Covenant on our part so that according to their 〈◊〉 Interpretations the New Covenant shall consist only of conditions or of precepts imposed upon us without so much as one Promise of mercy to us and consequently the Covenant of Grace shall exhibit no Grace at all or at most much lesse then the Covenant of Works doth If the Lord had meant that these words I will write my Laws in their hearts c. should be the bond of the Covenant on our part he would have expressed it in such a manner If my Lawes be written in your hearts I will be your God the words are plainly a promise of Sanctification which is one principall benefit of the New Covenant § 11. Whereas he adds That God doth here promise to work Faith which Faith is not promised as an effect of
principium omnium bonorum i. e. The cause and fountain of all other blessings and particularly of the renewing of our hearts and our returning unto God Now the consequences and Effects of a Blessing are not the Conditions of it § 3. His next Allegation from Heb. 10.14 c. hath the fate to fall as short of the mark as the former did For the Apostles scope there is not to shew in what order and method the benefits of the Covenant are bestowed upon us but that there needs no other Sacrifice for sin besides the Sacrifice which Christ hath offered which he proves because God in that Covenant which he promised to make with his people in the times of the New Testament declares That he will not onely give them a new heart but their sins and iniquities shall not be remembred any more Now where there is no more remembrance of sin there needs no more Sacrifice for sin so that the words expressed are sufficient to compleat the sense without understanding of then he saith or then it followeth which Mr. W. hath added in the close of the sixteenth Verse We may take them as they lie from Verse the fifteenth Whereof to wit of Christs perfect Sacrifice mentioned Vers. 14. the Holy Ghost is a witness to us for after he i. e. the Holy Ghost had said before This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those dayes to wit of the Old Testament which are now expired The Lord saith viz. The Holy Ghost who is the Lord Jehovah and with the Father and Son the Author of the New Covenant I will put my Laws into their hearts and in their mindes will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more So that I say there is no need that either of those clauses Then he saith c. should be foisted in between the 16 and 17 Verses It seems to me That the Copulative And is set as a bar to keep it forth shewing that the words in the 17 Verse ought to follow immediately upon the sixteenth I grant that the promise of Remission is one of the most special and noble Blessings contained in that general promise I will be their God yet it doth not follow that Regeneration or Inherent holiness is required or promised as the means or qualification to obtain this Blessing Pareus his Note upon the place is very sound That the Apostle here doth ground the promise of remission of sins upon that perfect oblation which Christ hath offered and not upon works of Sanctification which according to Mr. Woodbridges Doctrine is the immediate principle from whence it follows § 4. His next Assertion That in the New Covenant the giving of the first Grace is always promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means and qualification on mans part for his entrance into Covenant is justly obnoxious unto more then one Exception 1. The work of Conversion or the renewing of our hearts i◠unfitly called The first Grace For 1 to speak properly the first Grace is that which is Grace indeed to wit the Everlasting Love Favor and Good-pleasure of God towards his people for this is the rise and fountain of all those mercies which we receive in time yea of Christ himself John 3.16 Or 2 if by Grace we understand the Fruits and Effects of this Grace then certainly the precedenc◠or priority must be given unto Jesus Christ for whose sake all other blessings are bestowed upon us Ephes. 1.3 Or else 3 if by Grace we understand the Fruits and Effects of Christs death or the benefits which are freely given us for his sake even in this sense Inherent Sanctification is unduly put in the first place which is a consequent both of Justification and Adoption Gal. 4.5 6. Though it be promised in that place of Jeremy before Remission of sin◠yet in other places it is put after it as Ezek. 36.25 26. Jere. 32.38 39. The Reason why this promise is sometimes put first may probably be because the Grace of Sanctification is most apt to affect our senses we do apprehend and perceive it before we come to know our Justification § 5. 2. It is utterly false That the giving of a new heart is not promised as a part of the Covenant but as a means on mans part for his entrance into Covenant For 1 the Scripture no where affirms it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recital of the Covenant which is all he hath to pretend for this notion seeing that in other places the promise of Sanctification follows that of Justification from whence he may as well conclude that Justification is promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means to intitle us unto Sanctification so that not onely the promise of Faith but of Remission also shall be excluded from being a part of the Covenant 2 The promise of a new heart includes not onely the first act of Faith and Repentance but the continuance and increase of these Gifts so that either he must say that all the Promises of Sanctification which are included therein are no part of the Covenant or that the same promise is both a means to bring us into Covenant and a part of the Covenant i. e. it is a part and no part I must confess that I never yet met with that man who had the forehead to deny that the promise of Faith and Repentance is a part of the New Covenant 3 It seems to me an undeniable truth that the promises of Sanctification as well as of Justification are parts of the Covenant considering 1 that they have the same ground and foundation to wit the merit and purchase of Jesus Christ Christ hath merited Faith and Repentance no less then remission of sins Now whatsoever Christ hath purchased the Covenant promiseth All the effects of his death are equally parts of the New Covenant 2 Both these promises have the same end and design viz. The glory of God Faith and Repentance are not promised onely subserviently for our benefit but ultimately for the praise of his glory Tit. 2.14 1 Thes. 4.3 3 They are promised in the same manner as distinct and not as subordinate benefits he doth not say I will write my Laws in their hearts that I may pardon their sins and iniquities But I will write my Laws c. and their sins and iniquities I will remember no more § 6. 3. It sounds harshly That God promiseth Faith as a means on our part to bring us into Covenant for if God doth promise to bestow Faith it cannot properly be called a means on our part it were a means on our part if we performed it our selves and by our own strength as the condition required of Adam should have been For the removing of this rub I shall make it to appear that in the New Covenant there is no condition required