in his Gospel to have a Law The case is sad that any in opposition to others should run into such an Antinomian extream They are unlike to be good Preachers of Christ's Law who maintain that he hath no Law And there can be no sin against it nor expectation of being judged by it if he have none And he is no King and Ruler if he have no Law But yet let the Papists forbear iâ—â—â—ing and remember that the true meaning of most of them is no more than to assert what Suarez himself propugneth viz. that besides Revelations and the Duties thence naturally resulting by natural Law and the Sacraments Christ hath no other Laws And both Suarez and they are here to blame for the Papists that are by some accused for calling the Gospel a Law do also give too little honour to Christ's Laws It beseemeth none of them to use such ill Language what-ever they mean If they should say that the King is no Law-Giver and hath no Laws they would wrong him by that Language as denying his Royalty how well soever they should interpret it For the legislative-Legislative-Power is the principal essential part of Soveraignty But if any really deny Christ to be a Law-Giver and when he hath done reproacheth the Papists and Arminians for contradicting it it is but as the blind reproaching the purblind for seeing when they that give most to the Laws of Christ among these Contenders do give too little The Baptismal-Covenant is a Law as imposed and as imposing the Covenant-Duties and as determining the conditions of Life and Death according to which men must live and shall be judged yea it is the most famous Law which Conscience hath to do with Though it be a Covenant as consented to in the contract That Sinners have terms of Life and Death and offered Remedies against all their Guilt and greatest Punishments and Means prescribed and Duties commanded in order to their recovery when the Law of Innocency condemneth them especially the obeying of the Ministry and Word and Holy Spirit of Christ prescribing them his way of cure as their Physician all this is a Law of Grace even the Law of Liberty and the Law of the Spirit of Life which freeth us from the Law of Sin and Death Christ's Law consisteth of two parts as is said 1. The Law of Nature called by many moral as commanding the love of God and its attendent Duties not now to an innocent man but to a condemned-recovering Sinner as the health to which his Physician doth restore him 2. And the remedying Law which is more proper to the Redeemer called the Law of Faith which appointeth us the terms and means of our recovery which is 1. Supernatural as to the Revelation of the matter and reasons of it and the foundation of all in Christ's Work of Redemption and his Legislation 2. But as to the obligation or efficiency of mans duty it is both natural and supernatural at once that is when it is presupposed that Christ hath done suffered and offered to our acceptance all that is so asserted of him in the Gospel 1. Nature obligeth us to believe it upon evidence of credibility and to accept it and thankfully improve it 2. Christ as the Fathers Administrator and our King hath positively commanded us the same Were it not for wearying the Reader and my self I would here answer all that Suarez saith de Legib. li. 10. c. 2. to prove that no praeceptum positivum morale is added by Christ And I would easily prove that as some parts of Nature are unalterable and accordingly natural Duty so some things of Nature are mutable and so is that natural Duty which is founded on them And Christ hath by supernatural Performances and Revelations made such changes in the nature of things as inferreth new natural Obligations Were the Devils redeemed and Grace now offered them nature would make it their duty to accept it In sum it is a sufficient confutation of all Suarez's Reasons to say that they run upon this false supposition that Nature and supernatural Precept may not both oblige man to the same duty and that God cannot lay two Obligations on us to the same action For all that he laboureth is to prove that supposing the Revelation Nature bindeth us to believe all the Christian Articles to preach and hear and pray to God by Christ to love our Redeemer and be thankful c. and that the Gospel is thus fitted to lapsed Nature as the first Law was to innocent Nature All which I like very well and take it for a great honour to Christ and the Gospel that it is so suited to the natural necessity and state of fallen and miserable man and may be called the Law of sinful Nature But Suarez himself had before proved that Moses's Decalogue was both a Declaration of what Nature bound men to and yet also the matter of a new Precept of God And why could he not see the same of the Gospel it being so evident that it containeth Christ's Commands And the very sum of our Ministry is 1. To disciple and baptize all Nations c. 2. And then to teach them to observe all that Christ commanded And indeed Suarez confesseth p. 816. That Christ did by new commanding add new Obligations to the duties of Nature though he deny that Christ added any positive Precept as to the moral matter commanded by the Law of Nature And by this instance you may see how near some men agree that seem much to differ But as to them that insist on it that the Gospel and New Covenant are no Laws and that we have none from Christ but the Decalogue and Old Testament were I to write against them to purpose I would plentifully prove them Subverters of Christianity it self and give full evidence against them to any that believe the holy Scriptures And contrarily I would prove that there are no Divine Laws but what are truly the Laws of our Redeemer now in the world and that all Infidels are ruled and shall be judged by a Law of Grace though not of the last evangelical Edition and that he that feareth not breaking the Laws of Christ shall hear at last Those mine Enemies that would not that I should Reign over them bring them hither and slay them before me Luk. 19. 27. a a a That Christ is truly a King and so a Law-Giver and hath proper Laws and not only Doctrine and how great an injury some Protestants have doâ—e the Church by denying besides the Antinomians See Suarâ—z de Leg. l. 10. c. 1. whose proofs of the thing are unanswerable And I have long ago proved it in other Writings But Suarâ—z asserting that Christ's Law is only Moral and Ceremonial in the Sacraments and not judicial doth plainly confess that God never instituted the Papacy and their Discipline Yea he saith c. 2. p. 812. Christus in sua lâ—ge nihil de praecâ—ptis judicialibus statuit etiam
22. 2. For Name and Thing note the terms of Equivalence and Connotation 1. All the Texts where Christ is called a King and his Kingdom named why should I needlesly recite them 2. All the Texts that mention his Commanding and Commandments the same which we mean by a Law Matth. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you Acts 10. 42. 13. 47. Acts 10. 33. 1 Cor. 7. 10. John 15. 14. If ye do whatsoever I command you 17. These things I command you So John 15. 12. 14. 21 31. 1 Tim. 1. 1. Titus 1. 3. 1 John 3. 23. 4. 6. John 13. 34. 1 John 5. 3. 2. 4. 3. 24. 1 Cor. 14. 37. Acts 1. 2. Acts 17. 30. Blessed are they that do his Commandments c. Rev. 22. 14. 3. All the Texts that mention his Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Legal institution Heb. 8. 6. He is the Mediator of a better Covenant 8. 13. 8. 10. 10. 16. 12. 24. Gal. 4. 24. 4. All those Texts that not only call him Lord of all but say that All power in Heaven and Earth is given to him therefore Legislative power Matth. 28. 18. and all Judgement committed to him John 5. 22. The Government is laid upon his shoulders and of the increase of his Government there shall be no end Isa 9. 6 7. 5. De re how can that man be a Christian that denyeth that Christ hath made us any Law and so denyeth his Kingdom and our obedience I argue from the definition That which hath the essential parts of a Law is a Law But Christ hath made that which hath the essential parts of a Law Therefore he hath made a Law The Major is past dispute The Minor I prove That which hath a Precept making Duty and a Promise and Threatning instituting the Retribution by Rewards and Punishments as an Instrument of Government hath all the Essentials of a Law But such is made by Christ Ergo The Minor which only needs proof I prove by parts and instances 1. There is a Command to believe in God as our Reconciled Father by Christ 2. To believe in Christ as Incarnate and the Mediator conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary fulfilling all righteousness dying buried for us justifying us by his blood rising ascending glorified interceding that will raise the dead and judge the world c. We are commanded to believe all the Gospel And to give up our selves to Christ in the Covenant of Baptism to trust in him to pray in his name c. We are commanded to believe in the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of Christ and to live in Communion with the Christian Church to observe the Lords day the first of the Week to preach and hear the Gospel to receive the Lords Supper to imitate Christ to receive his Apostles and Ministers to relieve his members as such to take Moses Law as abrogated or ceased And do you that are so strict in condemning all humane impositions as bold additions believe that Christ himself hath made no Laws for Ordination Sacraments Preaching Worship and why fear you adding then can one add to Nothing And what a lawless sort of persons are you if you will neither have Christ nor Man to make Laws for you 2. And as to Promises and Threats or Penalties of a far sorer punishment Heb. 10. I am ashamed to stand to prove them to you He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned is sure a Law How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation See that ye reject not him that speaketh Heb. 4. 10. These mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring them hither and slay them before me Luke 19. 27. with abundance such Pardon here that my indignation suffereth me not to be longer or colder but shortly to tell you further that to deny Christs Law is 1. To deny him to be a King and to be Christ 2. To deny his Kingdom 3. And his Government 4. And his Gospel 5. And his Officers power both Kings and Pastors 6. And your own subjection 7. And all duty and obedience to him 8. And the being of all sin as against his Laws 9. And all Judgement according to his Laws 10. And all reward for keeping his Laws 11. And all punishment for breaking them 12. And all duty to preach learn or meditate on them 13. And all blame on such as silence such preaching 14. And indeed the very being of all Law and Government in the world For since the Promise Gen. 3. or at least now there is no Law of God in the world but what is the Redeemers Law Even the Law of Nature now is in his hand and is the Law of the Redeemer to lapsed Nature And all the world had a new Law of Grace made to Adam in the first Edition and the Church hath it now in the second Edition And now what part of Christianity do you not destroy Choose you now whether you will come off by confessing that you erred and differed from us but in a word not understood or whether you will allow us to take you for downright Hereticks And bethink you whether those rash and self-conceited Divines that have reviled Papists and Arminians for saying that Christs Gospel was a Law or that he made a new Law have done good service to the Christian or the Protestant Cause or have rather done much to harden the Rapists into a more confident conceit that Protestants are Hereticks CHAP. V. Whether Christ be the only Party in Covenant with God and not Believers or lapsed man Lib. IV. Mr next Charge it that you feign the Covenant to be made with us which is made only with Christ Do you not remember that even the Westminster Assembly say in their larger Catechism that The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in him with all the Elect as his seed But you feign it to be made with the Elect nay to others immediately and not only as Christs seed in him nor to Christ at all P. I will not waste time in expounding or censuring other mens words but as to the matter is it not a most shameful thing that a man of your profession and pretensions to knowledge should confound those two Covenants which children should be taught in their Catechism to distinguish By a Covenant here we mean 1. A Covenant offered and imposed which is also a Law 2. A Covenant consented to and mutual And now tell me Quest 1. Was it not a distinct Law that was made to us from that which Christ was obliged by I mean the Law of Grace and Faith Was Christ commanded to Repent of his sin or accept a Saviour or pray for pardon or mortifie his lusts or trust another to reconcile him to God or be Thankful for such mercies or any such like
proâ—â—de futuritiâ— quae ab aeterno fuisse dicitur vel nihil reale fuit vel fuit ipse Deus Quod est Causa cur res in tempore existat idem plane Causa est cur res ab aeterno extitura fuerit Sicut quod Causa est quod res aliquando fuit Causa est cur in aeternum dicetur praeterita Ad effectum futurum sufficit Causa futura sicut ad praeteritum sufficit Causa praeterita This is plain and easie truth to his Ends and saith It is not evil to me though it be to you I 'le â—â—â—ment you for doing it though it was by my Will and predetermination And what Justice should Kings rather imitate than Gods 6. Sin is not malum Deo so as to Hurt him or make him Guilty But it is so as to be a Violation of his Laws and a contempt and dishonour to his Wisdom Goodness Greatness Authority Justice Mercy Truth c. If all the World joyned in hating and blaspheming God that made them though you say that this is not malum Dei but malum nostri and therefore God may will it ut fiat as a desirable thing we cannot be content with such confusion Malum is either Physicum vel morale and either in aliquo or contra aliquem God is not capable 1. Of Physical Evil in himself and therefore we cannot hurt him 2. Nor of Moral Evil and therefore he can have no sin or malignity 3. But he is capable objectively of Injury we can wrong him when we cannot hurt him 4. And we are capable of being Reputativè vel moraliter Hurters and destroyers of God whom we cannot hurt Because the sinner doth it quantum in se and therefore is called an Enemy to God It is no thanks to the wicked that there is a God who would have none as to his Holiness and Justice if it were in his power Moreover God is Good and doth good And though he made Man freely yet supposing that he will make him Man a Rational free agent in his Image to Know and Love him it necessarily followeth that he must make him Holy God cannot make a man in the Image of the Devil and call it his own As Parents generate Children in their own likeness so God doth regenerate his own in his Image He that thought it a good argument What Communion hath light with darkness Christ with Belial c. would sure have taken our part in this that God cannot be the Author or Cause of the Image of the Devil and of the works of darkness 611. Therefore where he addeth that God Willeth Malum esse that sin be as the Matter of exercising his mercy and justice not as his sin but tantum vult fieri malum alterius I deny it with horror as a reproach of Gods holiness The terminus à quo is not the Materia misericordia vel justitiae exercendae God willeth the glory of his Mercy and Justice in pardoning and punishing foreseen presupposed sin But he willeth not the sin but only our deliverance from it or punishment for it Suppose per impossible that the King had power to restrain all men from offending him and yet saith I will do only what is Congruous to the Rational free nature of my subjects as such and not all that I can do and therefore will restrain them only by Laws except some few beloved ones but I will honour my Mercy and Justice on offenders Can you hence prove that he willeth decreeth or loveth ut appetibilia all the Treasons Rebellions Murders and Blasphemies that are committed It is not these that he willeth ut Materiam but deliverance from these as from the malum à quo If your prodigal Son be addicted to Robbing and you could lock him up but you resolve that you will try him once more and if he roâ— you will let him suffer imprisonment and come to the Gallows and then beg his Pardon that suffering may hereafter be his warning Here if you choose rightly it is not his Robbing that you will no not ut sit vel fiat for you had rather he would forbear But only his forsaking it and his suffering to that end on supposition that he rob again 612. Pag. 105. He saith that By the same reason as God might not will the being of sin by his permission he might not permit it Answ A raw unproved assertion God might not make an Indifferent free-will left to its own liberty with a thousand warnings and helps against sin unless he may also Desire them to sin Prove this else you say nothing 613. He addeth that sin be or exist is not only Bonum per accidens because God will make it the matter of glorifying his mercy and justice but it is ex natura sua quoddam ordinabile ad Gloriam Dei consequenter Bonum est ex natura sua in genere conducibilis Answ All unproved and false 1. Sin is not so much as Bonum per accidens 2. God doth not make it the Matter of glorifying himself but only glorifyeth his Mercy and Justice against it as the terminus à quo and not by it as the matter though it may be called an Occasion sine qua non as to this particular act and way of his said glorification 3. Much less is it conducible hereto which implyeth a Medium that hath some natural or moral causality 4. And least of all is it ex sua natura conducibile It is not sin but 1. Some effects or consequents of sin 2. Our deliverance from sin and the punishing of sin which are conducible to Gods glory 614. Next he insulteth over Aquinas twice as unhappy and vain in his censures with a Magna est Veritas praevalebit laborare potest vinci non potest And argueth that because ex permissione infallibiliter sequitur peccatum therefore to permit sin is the same as to will that sin shall be ipso permittente Answ 1. It 's pity that sin should have so good an Advocate and Gods Holiness so good an Adversary through mistake And that so unhappy a Cause should be managed so confidently and triumphantly though it 's well that it 's done so weakly 2. The falshood of his assertion about permission as general I have opened before 1. Three sorts of things may be said to be Not hindered which is all that Permission signifieth 1. Things bent to a certain motion 1. By Natural inclination as a Stone in the Air to descend 2. Or by Moral Vitiosity as the Will of a wicked man 2. Things meerly indifferent 1. Naturally as some think the Air is to motion 2. Morally as suppose a Will such to Good or Evil. 3. Things averse to that Motion as 1. Naturally a Stone to ascend 2. Morally as the will of an Angel or Saint to hate God or the will of a wicked man to Love him Also you must distinguish between Not-hindering at all and not hindering effectually And so
to be damned to Hell but to be glorified in Heaven or to be sentenced to endless life and acquit from this Accusation that we are damnandi or to be punished in Hell And in order to this to be sentenced such as have the true causes and conditions of Right to Impunity and Life which are 1. Immediately the gift of this Right by God himself in his Covenant with Christ the Fountain of it 2. A true Right and Relation to Christ as our Head and Saviour and the only Meriter of this Covenant-Gift and Justification and Adoption by his habitual active and passive Righteousness and Sacrifice advanced in dignity by Union with his Divine perfection 3. True Faith and Repentance with Love Obedience and Perseverance as the title-conditions required by the donative and condonative Covenant 358. As I have before said that a man must be justified at that Day from the charge of Infidelity by his Faith it self and not by Christ's Merits and from the charge of Impenitence by his Repentance it self So I add that he must be justified from the charge of Hypocrisie by his sincerity and from the charge of Rebellion by his subjection and from the charge of wickedness by final godliness and obedience and from the charge of Apostacy by perseverance But from the charge of his wickedness before Conversion and his pardoned sins and weakness since only by Christ's Sacrifice and meritorious Righteousness and the Pardon purchased thereby and given in the New Covenant And from the accusation that we are Sinners in general we have no Justification at all 359. Judgment is the Genus and Justification and Condemnation are the Species Therefore to be judged according to our Works is to be justified or condemned according to our Works 360. As I said that it is God's Justice and Mercy and Christ's Redemption of us which are chiefly to be glorified at that Day but it is our personal Gospel-Righteousness or performance of the Conditions of the New Covenant which is then to be tried and we and not Christ that are to be judged So I add that the New Testament referring to this fore-seen doth usually speak accordingly of justifying us by Faith by our words or by our works that he that doth righteousness is righteous c. And it speaketh of that same Righteousness as constituting us just first by which we must be judged just at last 361. It is very easie therefore where prejudice blindeth not men to see the concord of Christ's saying We are justified by our words and Paul's by Faith and not by Works and James by Works and not by Faith only Christ speaketh of a particular Justification from a common great Crime a wicked Tongue as the sign or product of a wicked Heart And this must be part of the personal material Righteousness by which we must be justified as true Christians * * * Tolet in Rom. 3. Annot 17. Estius in Rom. 3. 28. Vega de justiâ— qu 3. p. 899. say of Justification by Faith as the Protestants do Vid. Stapleton de Justifi li. 8. c. ult Bellarm. de Justif l. 2. c. 7 10 11. Suarez de Grat. l. 7. c. 7. n. 29. Topper art 8. de Justif p. 25 26 27. Vasqu in 1. 2. disput 202. c. 6. n. 45. Coster Enchir. p. 292. Paul speaketh of our being justified by being Christians and not by keeping Mose's Law or doing any Works which will be to us instead of a Christ or a free-given Pardon and Righteousness by him And James speaketh of the full condition of Justification as continued final and compleat as it consisteth of its essential parts 362. The Key of Understanding Paul's Discourses of Justification is to know 1. That the grand question which he first manageth is Whether the Gentiles may not be saved without keeping the Jewish Law as well as the Jews with it 2. To prove the Affirmative he proveth that the Jews themselves cannot be saved or justified meerly or primarily by the Law notwithstanding the divinity and great excellency of it but must be justified by a Saviour and free-given Pardon and Right to Life and to which the sincere keeping of Mose's Law was intended to be but subservient 3. That therefore it appeareth that the Jews did so fondly admire the Law and their national priviledges under it that they thought that the exact keeping of it was necessary and sufficient to Justification and Salvation And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness as a Sacrifice for Sin and Meriter of free Pardon and the Gift of Life but only a great King and Deliverer to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies and Bondage 4. That it was not Adam's Covenant of Innocency or Perfection which the Jews thus trusted to or Paul doth speak against as to Justification though a minore ad majus that also is excluded For the Jews knew that they were Sinners and that God pardoned Sin as a merciful God and that their Petavius de Leg Grat. li. 1. c. 7. Well openeth the various senses in which the Law doth or doth not promise life eternal And through his two Books is much worth the reading of the difference of the Law and Gospel See Mr. Allen's Treat of the Two Covenants with my Preface And Mr. Truman's Great Propitiat with the Append. Law had Sacrifices for Pardon and Expiation with Confessions c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to political ends and to temporal Rewards and Punishments it had been sufficient to eternal Rewards and Punishments and that of it self and not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah Therefore they thought that he that kept the Law so far as to comit no sin which the Law punished with death or abscission and that for all his other pardonable sins performed the required Penances and Sacrifices was by this which is called The Works of the Law that is the keeping of the Law a righteous justifiable person 5. That the thing therefore which Paul disproveth them by is 1. That the Law was never made for such an end 2. That even then it stood in subordination to Redemption and free-given life 3. That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace containing the Promise of the Messiah and Pardon and Life by him was before the Law and justified Abraham and others even without it 4. That their Law was so strict that no man could perfectly keep it all 5. That every Sin deserveth death indeed though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate 6. That their Law was never Obligatory to the Gentile world who had a Law written in their Hearts and therefore not the common way of Justification * * * Jansenius Aug. To. 2. c. 4. asserteth That the chief difference between the old Law and the new is that the old was written in Stone and Tables and the new only in memory and
become parties in such daring medlings with the Consuming Fire Notes on some passages of Mr. Peter Sterries Book of Free-will § 1. IT is long since I heard much of the name and fame of Mr. Peter Sterry long Chaplain to Robert Lord Brook and after to Oliver Cromwel when he was Protector as then called His common fame was that his Preaching was such as none or few could understand which incensed my desire to have heard him of which I still mist though I oft attempted it But now since his death while my Book is in the Press unfinished a posthumous tractate of his cometh forth of Free-will upon perusal of which I find in him the same notions for so far as he meddleth with the same subjects as in Sr. H. Vane and somewhat of what Dr. Gibbon seemeth to deliver in his Scheme but all handled with much more strength of parts and raptures of highest devotion and great candour towards all others than I expected His Preface is a most excellent Perswasive to Universal Charity Love was never more extolled than throughout his Book Doubtless his head was strong his wit admirably pregnant his searching studies hard and sublime and I think his Heart replenished with holy Love to God and great charity moderation and peaceableness toward men In so much that I heartily repent that I so far believed fame as to think somewhat hardlier or less charitably of him and his few adherents than I now hope they did deserve Hasty judging and believing fame is a cause of unspeakable hurt to the world and injury to our brethren § 2. But I find that it is no wonder that he was understood by few For 1. His sublime and philosophical notions met not with many Auditors so well studied in those things as to be capable of understanding them It is a great inconvenience to men of extraordinary discoveries and sublimity that they must speak to very few 2. And though he cloud not his matter with so many self-made names and notions as Behmen Paraâ—elsus Wigelius and some others yet those few that he hath do somewhat obscure it 3. But above all the excessive pregnancy of his wit produceth so great a superabundance of Metaphors or Allegories that about the description of Christ especially they make up almost all his style so that to any ordinary Reader his matter is not so much cloathed in Metaphors as drowned buried or lost And though I confess my wit being to his but as a barren Desart to a florid Meadow may be apt to undervalue that which it attaineth not yet I do approve of my present judgement in thinking that seeing all metaphorical terms are ambiguous he that excessively useth them befriendeth not the Truth and the hearers intellect but while he is too much a Rhetorician he is too little a good Logician aâ—d as he is hardly understood by others I should fear lest he feduce his own understanding and can scarce have clear mental conceptions of that matter which he utters by a torrent of ambiguous Metaphors if he think as he speaketh and his words be the direct expressions of his mind I had rather be instructed in the words of the most barbarous Schoolman adapted to the matter than to be put to save my self from the temptation of equivocations in every sentence which I hear and to search after that Truth which is known only naked under so florid a disguise and paint § 3. But I cannot deny that though my temptations before were very great to doubt whether the Doctrine of Universally-necessary Predetermination as delivered by Bradwardine the Dominicans Dr. Twisse Rutherford and Hobbes were indeed to be rejected the Reading of Mr. Sterry increased my temptation not by any new strength of argument which he hath brought but by the power of his pious florid Oratory by which while he entitleth God to the necessitating causation of all sin and misery he seemeth to put so honourable and lovely a cloathing on them from their relative order to God to the Universe and to their End as that I felt my hard thoughts of both to abate and I was tempted to think of them as part of the amiable consequents of the Divine Love and of the Harmâ—nious order caused by the manifold wisdom of God § 4. And by this I see of how great importance it is in the world not only what Doctrine is taught and with what proof but who speaketh it and in what manner For as I found the same things reverenced in Dr. Twisse and Rutherford which were not so in Alvarez or Jansenius or Thom. White so I found the same Doctrine of Predetermining Necessitation almost commonly brought into greater dislike by Hobbes and Benedictus Spinosa's owning it and applying it to it s too obvious uses than all In Tract Polit. Theol. argumentations had ever before brought it And I see it as likely to recover its honour by the pious and florid dress put upon it by Mr. Sterry as if some new demonstrations for it were found out § 5. If I should recite Mr. Sterries mind in his own Metaphors the Reader may not understand it If I Epitomize him and change his words some may say that I misunderstand and wrong him But I will not do it willingly and if I do it necessarily his stile is my excuse He that would be seen must come into the light § 6. The summ of that which I am now concerned in in Mr. Sterry's Treatise is That the Freedom of all things is to act according to their natures and so is that of the will of man and that in God and man Necessity and Liberty concurr and that whatever we do or will we do or will it necessarily as being moved to it by the first causâ— and a chained connexion of necessitating causes by which all things in the world are carryed on That a will not determined by God but left to a self-determination without Gods predetermining causality is not to be asserted as contrary to Gods Goodness Wisdom power c. That sin is a privation formally and all that is positive in it is directly and not by accident of Gods positive causation else with the Manichees we must hold two first causes And that the formal privation is from the wiâ—lidrawing of necessary Divine causation of the contrary and God is the Negative necessitating cause of it Even as he causeth Light by the shining of the Sun and causeth darkness by its setting or not â—hining or as he causeth substances and shadows Life and death And that all sin thus as necessarily followeth Gods not giving the contrary or his leaving the defectible Creature to itself as the darkness folâ—oweth the Lights removal And this was the entrance of sin into the world the Woman being Necessarily deceived necessarily sinned and all good and evil is thus as to necessity equally to be resolved into Gods causing and not causing Will what he will cause cannot but be and what
the command be in vain but whether the duty commanded be in vain And how doth one mans good use of common Grace prepare another man for conversion and not himself It is for himself that God commandeth and earnestly exhorteth men to be reconciled unto God And is this in vain to themselves if they do it If they repent when commanded it is not in vain If they use common Grace in seeking God how prove you that it shall be in vain If you say to your Servants Come and ask me for your Food and Raiment when you want them they would think that Command did not set them upon a vain asking If an able Physician that could cure a Disease at his pleasure should say Take this Medicine for the cure of your Disease or this preparative it would be supposed not in vain In this Command God is both Rector and Benefactor As Rector the right government of mankind is his end which is not done by setting them on vain duty As Benefactor the good of his Creature is his end as we may call it under his Glory therein And vain duty is an evil and not a benefit to any If the King sent to you to come and ask him for He that readeth the Doctrine of the greater part of the Papists of supernaturality â—and infusion of Charity or Grace will have little reason to say that they bring them too much into the power of man â—especially the Dominicans Doth not Alvarez set Grace far enough out of mans power when he saith li. 7. disp 69. p. 306. c. 1. Impossibile est quod Gratia habitualis sit connaturalis alicui substantiae creatae vel creabili Ergo etiam est impossibile quod Charitas vel ejus actus sit ei connaturalis aut ex solis viribus naturae procedens Prob. antecedens Quia contra rationem Gratiae est quod sit debita naturae ex â—o enim gratia dicitur quia gratis datur non ex debito And is not a mans Being and Nature given him gratis non ex debitâ— Indeed had he defined Grace to be quod datur contra meritum the contradiction in the terms would have allowed this game at words to be true But words it is and to no purpose or else I cannot excuse it from blasphemy to say that God is not able to make an Angel or any Creature in whom the habits of Grace or Love shall be connatural Protestants hold on the contrary that some degree of habitual Love was connatural to Adam and the Angels though not as essential to their Natures and so unlosable And that Love is now called supernatural because medicinal supernatural Grace must restore it to corrupted Nature Rada the Scotist Cont. 1. speaks better of supernaturality For my part that which I fear in these high strains of supernaturality in these Papists Doctrine and Sir Henry Vanâ—'s is â—est it should produce Infidelity and Saduceâ—sm And he that to day holdeth that the Love to God is so exceeding far supernatural to perfect Nature it self may to morrow hold that mans Species is changed by Grace And the next day that it is more credible that mans Nature was never made to love God or to be glorified than to believe that God will either make him of another Species or give him another Nature besides the perfecting of the Nature created Yea that God cannot make a Creature that shall naturally love his Maker preferment you would take it to signifie half a promise Now Gods Promises are not strictly Obligations any further than the notification of his Will and giving the subject a right is an Obligation where Gods Perfection is instead of an Obligation And is such a Command Ask Seek Accept no notification of his Will that our labour shall not be lost I do not call it a Promise But is it not a signification that God the Rector and Benefactor of the World will not let the performer lose his labour C. He loseth not his labour if he get by it but temporal mercies and an abatement of his pains in Hell B. Do you thus paraphrase Gods Command Seek for Grace and thou shalt have Health or Riches or seek for Conversion and Salvation and thou shalt have an easier Damnation This is still a duty that 's vain as to the commanded End C. I confess it were not in vain if they could do it as he commandeth for God commandeth them to do it in faith and spiritual sincerity which they cannot do B. Do you thus paraphrase the Command Seek Faith in Faith and seek Sincerity in Sincerity that is You that have not Faith and Sincerity if you have them already seek that you may have them Did not you confess that they that have not special Grace are bound to seek it in the use of certain means C. They are bound to do it but they are not able B. Did not you confess that they were able by common Grace to do the works of common Grace and that in abundance of instances What is common Grace for if they can do nothing by it C. It is equal to nothing for it is not acceptable to God B. Did not you confess that it is a preparation to special Grace and may bring them nearer to the Kingdom of God C. But without Faith it is impossible to please God B. But there are several sorts of Faith and several degrees of pleasing God We grant that without special Faith it is impossible so to please God as to have Justification Adoption or any Title to Heaven as the members of Christ have But by a common Faith men come to be less displeasing to God than grosser Infidels and Rebels and are more prepared for converting Grace You know that this is the common Doctrine both of our practical and polemical Divines as you may see in their Books and the Synod of Dort C. But our Divines against the Arminians oft say That a man that hath but nature and common Grace cannot use them well B. I am resolved not to be cheated by ambiguous words To use them well signifieth 1. To use them in love to God as the Ultimate End and so none but the godly use any thing And do not all the Arminians grant you that 2. Or it is to use them so much better than worser men as that they draw nearer God and are more prepared for special Grace And do not all our Divines grant that they may so far use them well where then is the difference C. The prayer of the Wicked is abomination to the Lord. B. By wicked is meant either one that is yet unregenerate as such or one that is actually set upon wickedness progressively and is not about returning to God And by abomination is meant either that which God accepteth not so far as to pardon and save him that doth it though he judge him more prepared for Grace than others or else that which he totally abhorreth as being no
but the Baptismal Covenant where sure the condition is notorious and every Baptizing Minister prerequireth the profession of it CHAP. VII Whether Justifying Faith be a Believing in Christ as a Teacher Lord c. or only a Receiving of his Righteousness P. VI. AS to this your sixth Charge I have said so much elsewhere in my Disputations of Justification and in other Books that I cannot justifie the tiring of Readers by repeating it And will say now but this little following 1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith and saving faith but excludeth the Works excluded by him from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation 2. That if Receiving Christs Righteousness be meant by them properly and physically it is no sort of faith at all but only the effect of the donation which they call Justificari or passive Justification But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception that is nothing but Consent to have the offered gift And if only Consent to have Christs Righteousness be Justifying faith then all the Assenting part is excluded in which Scripture much placeth it and most Divines in part and many in whole besides Camâ—ro and his followers And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial â—cts are excluded which almost all include even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent 3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith as well as this Consent to be Justified 1. An Assenting belief in God in the baptismal sense 2. An Assent to the truth of Christs Person Office and Doctrine 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost 4. A belief of Pardon Sanctification and Glory as possible purchased and offered by Christ 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher 7. And our King and Ruler 8. And our Intercessor 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence and as our Advocate 10. A belief of his Resurrection Power and Glory 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost 4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Pauls sense is the same thing with our Christianity or becoming Christians And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent 5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith But to accept his righteousness only and not to believe in him as our Lord and our Teacher and Intercessor c. as aforesaid is not to believe in him as Christ 6. In my Answer ubi sup to Mr. Warner and elsewhere I have detected the fraud of their quibling distinction who say that All this is in faith quae justificat but not quà justificat as supposing a falshood that any act of faith quà talis justifieth 7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christs Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith and that to expect to be Justified by any other viz. by Believing in God the Father and the Holy Ghost and believing a Heaven hereafter and believing the Truth of the Gospel and of Christs Resurrection Ascension Glory c. and by taking him for our Teacher Ruler Intercessor c. is to expect Justification by Works in Pauls disclaimed sense and so to fall from Grace I say they that thus teach do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel and making a Gospel or Religion of their own as that I must tell them to move them to repentance not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this but many that in Epiphanius are numbred with Hereticks had far lesser errors than this is CHAP. VIII Of Faiths Justifying as an Instrument P. VII ANd I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest that I cannot perswade my self now to talk it out with you all over again but only to say 1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures that pardon and salvation are given with Christ in the Covenant of Grace on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification and so to be profest in Baptism 2. The name of An Instrument given to faith and its Justifying as an Instrument are of mens devising and not in Gods Word 3. But as to the sense It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification Gods or Mans if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause 4. But if it be taken Metaphorically for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift and so by Instrumentality be meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere that is Faith 's very Essence in specie then no doubt it is what it is 5. Or if by an Instrument be meant A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physicks then it is such an Instrument But how well this is worded and what cause there is to contend for a word both of humane invention and metaphorical and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine I leave to sober judgements 6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification CHAP. IX Whether Faith it self be imputed for Righteousness Lib. VIII WHat do you but subvert the Gospel when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us you say it is by faith imputed P. Do you think any sober Christians here really differ or is it only about the Names and Notions Which ever it be 1. Of the name Is it not oft said that Faith is and shall be imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4. 22 23 24. James 2. 23. Lib. Yes I must grant the words but not your meaning P. Where doth the Scripture say that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of Lib. It saith that Righteousness is Imputed and what Righteousness â—an it be but Christs P. I tell you still it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying Are these the same words Righteousness is Imputed and Christs Righteousness is Imputed If not where are these latter words in Scripture Lib. Grant that the words are not and your words are P. Then the question is Whether Scripture phrase or mans invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying that faith is imputed to us for righteousness and not rather confute our misexpounding it if we do so Lib. Well Let us examine the sense then What