Labors in the Woâ—â— of the Gospel may be more successful unto you and to all others that do partake of them Which will be the greateâ—â— joy on â—arth unto him who is Yours in the nearest Bonds W. Eyre The Third day of the Ninth Moneth 1653. TO THE Christian Reader FRIEND IF thou knowest me and how many Burdens do lie upon me I dare say thou dost not expect an Apology for the tarriance of this little peece For though considering the work thou mightest have had it much sooner yet by reason of my much sickness daily services in the Ministry and the cares of my Family which are not ordinary though I had finished it eight moneths since it was not likely thou shouldst have had it now However If any shall upbraid me as Ecchius did Melancthon when he delayed to Answer an Argument he had put unto him It is not praise-worthy sayes he if thou dost not answer it presently I shall say to him as Melancthon to the Doctor I seek not my own praise in this matter but the truth and perhaps it may succeed more to the advantage of the truth that it was delayed I lately met with a passage which fell from the Pen of a Leading Man in these times whereof I held it necessary to give thee my thoughts to remove the prejudices which probably it hath begotten against this discourse There is says the Author a very judicious Man Mr. B. Woodbridge of Newbeâ—y hath written so excellent well against this Error sâ—il Justification before the act of believing or without conditions and in so small room being but one Sermon that I would advise all private Christians to get one of them as one of the best easiest cheapest preservatives against the contagion of this part of Antinomianism It is far from me to envy the praises of Mr. Woodbridge being ready to give a more ample Testimony to his personal worth I do freely acknowledge that in natural and acquired parts for his time he is like Saul amongst the people higher by the head and shoulders then most of his Brethren However that commends not the cause he is engaged in It is not to be wondered at that Mr. B. hath given this superlative encomium to Mr. Woodbridges Sermon he knew well enough that it would rebound upon himself Mr. W. being a son of his own Faith and this notion of his but a spark from out of Mr. Baxters forge I suppose Mr. Baxters praises or dispraises are not greatly regarded by sober-minded Christians who have observed how highly he magnifies J. Goodwin with others of his notion and how slightingly he mentions Dr. Twisse and all our Protestant Divines that differ from him How excellently Mr. W. hath written of this matter will appear to the impartial Examiner of this Surveigh Learned Men have held that the best way to demolish Error is to build up Truth as to drive out Darkness is to let in Light Now M. W. though he endeavors to prove no Justification before Faith yet throughout all his Sermon he never so much as hinted how or in what sense we are justified by Faith the Explication whereof according to the sense of our Protestant Writers would have ended the matter For the Question depending between us is not so much about the time as the terms and matter of our Justification to wit How and by what means we are made Just and Righteous in the sight of God Which we affirm to be by the perfect Righteousness of Christ alone which God doth impute unto us freely without Works and Conditions performed by us though we have not the sense and comfort of it any otherwise then by Faith The Antecedency of our Justification in foro Dei before Faith is but a Corrollary from this Position and Mr. B. acknowledgeth it to be a necessary consequence from the imputation of Christs Active Obedience which hath hitherto been the unanimous Tenent of our Protestant Divines and Mr. Norton of N. E. thinks it no less then Heresie to deny it His advice unto all private Christians to buy one of these Sermons argues rather his conceit of himself then his charity to them that he dares take upon him the office of a Universal Dictator to prescribe not onely to his Kedermisterians but to all private Christians what Books they shall read Whether Mr. Woodbridges Tract may be called the best amongst none good that are written against this Truth I shall not dispute But that it is such an easie peece for all private Christians to understand I doe very much doubt though the men of Kedermister who I fear are fed but with little better food can swallow down such choakly meat as his Paradoxes and distinctions of Faith evidencing Axiomatically or Syllogistically Of Justification Impetrated and Exemplified Of our working actively and passively Of Promises in the Covenant which are not parts of the Covenant but means to bring us into Covenant c. yet unto other private Christians I dare say they are like Herring bones in the throat and not a whit more intelligible then a Lecture of Arabeck The next motive he hath his upon probably may take with many the cheapnesse of the book which he doth commend but if the price and the profit were put together I dare say the Buyer will confesse that he hath given a great too much He buyes poison too dear who hath it for nothing As for the title of Antinomianism which he bestowes upon our Doctrine it is no great slander out of Mr. Baxters mouth with whom an Antinomian and an Anti-Papist are termini convertibles Let him shew us any one Church or single person accounted Orthodox till this present age that did not hold some yea most of those Points which he cals Antinomianism and I will openly acknowledge I have done him wrong otherwise let him bee looked upon as a Slanderer and Revilâ—r of all the Protestant Churches who under a shew of friendship hath endeavored to expose them to the scorne and obloquie of their Enemies Mr. B. the better to ingage his Reader tels him his Doctrine is of a middle straine as if all the Reformed Churches had hitherto been in an extreame in this fundamentall point of our Justification It is like he thinks the Papists are much nearer to the line of truth then any of them But in earnest is Mr. Baxters Doctrine of a middle strain I am sure he gives as much unto Works and lesse unto Christ then the Papists doe He makes Works by vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant to be the meritorious causes of Justification and Salvation and in no other sence doe the Papists affirm it I must needs say I never yet met with that Papist which calls Christ a sine qua non i. e. a cause which effects nothing of our Justification But I shall desire the Reader for his better satisfaction to paralell Mr. Baxters Doctrine with these ten Positions of Bishop Gardiner
Peace and Unity are bounded with a salva fide as that Rom. 12.18 If it be possible now Id solum possumus quod jure possumus nothing is possible but what is lawful so that if we may with a good Conscience and without treachery to the truths of Christ we ought to live peaceably with all men So Rom. 14.19 it is not barely Follow after peace but peace and the things which make for edification it must be an edifying and not a destroying peace such as may promote and not hâ—nder the building up of the Church Vid Rom. 15.2 and 1 Cor. 14.29 The unity we are bid to strive for Eph. 4.3 is the unity of the Spirit and not like that of Simeon and Levi who were Brethren in iniquity For as one observes well out of Basil the Great If we once shake the simplicity of the Faith Disputes and Contentions will prove endless 4. If Christians in their Publick Disputes do so far forget the Rules of Sobriety and Moderation as to betake themselves to those carnal Weapons of Jeering Scoffing and Reviling each other it is an iniquity to be punished by the Judge because it tends so directly to the breaking of our Civil Peace and is more scandalous in them then in any others Would the Civil Magistrate Interpose himself so far as to be the Moderator of our differences in this behalf these Publick Debates would be of singular use CHAP. III. Being a Surveigh of Mr. Woodbridges Title Page wherein the Opinion he opposeth is cleared from the Aspersion of Antinomianism IT is a common saying Fronti nulla fides We may no more judge of Books by their Titles then of Strumpets by their Foreheads or of Apothecaries Drugs by the Inscriptions of the Pots which do contain them whose out-sides many times are Remedies when the inside is stark poyson The natures of things do not always answer the Names and Inscriptions which are put upon them We read of Pompey that he built a Theater Cum titulo Templi and of Apolinarius the Heretick That he had a School Cum titulo Orthodoxi Nestorius also vailed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Montanus who would have our Saviour to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assumed unto himself the Title of Paracletus nay Apelles the Painter drew his filthy Strumpet Cum titulo Veneris with the Inscription of a Goddess that so he might more easily bring men to the adoration of her There is nothing more common then for men to adorn their Errors with the Robe of Truth and to deform the Truth with the Rags of Error I hope therefore that the Reader will be more wary then to judge of this mans Doctrine by the specious Title which he gives his own or that black mark wherewith he hath branded the Opinion which he doth oppose He calls his own Opinion Justification by Faith and the Doctrine he opposeth an Antinomian Error both which may be understood Per antiphrasin for Justification by Works and an Evangelical Truth As for his own Opinion he had more fitly stiled it Justification by Works taking Faith as he doth in a proper sence and attributing no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification which in his sence do morally qualifie men for Justification and Salvation I cannot think him a hearty Advocate for Justification by Faith who holds That we are not justified till the day of judgement which I am credibly informed this Author hath Publickly maintained since he Preached this Sermon But how ill his Book doth deserve this Title shall appear in discussing the parts of it § 2. And as for the imputation he hath cast on our Doctrine which he calls an Antinomian Error I doubt not but it will redound more unto his shame then unto ours It hath been an old continued practise of Satan to blast the truths and wayes of God with odious Nick-names purposely to deter the simple from looking into them as few men will come near to a house which is marked for the Plague It were easie to fill a Volume with those opprobrious Terms and Titles which in all ages have been cast upon the Truth and the Professors of it Sure I am Satan hath gained no small advantage by these Hellish means Tertullian observes That the Christians were hated and persecuted for no other crime but the crime of their Name So there are many things in these days generally decryed that are onely guilty of an evil name I doubt not but there will be found many a precious truth in those Bundles of Errors which have been heaped together by some Godly-men in this last age 'T is but an easie Confutation to cry out Error and Heresie and this I have often observed That they who are most liberal with these loose invectives are generally sparing of solid Arguments Whether the Opinion which Mr. W. opposeth be an Error sub judice lis est How well he hath acquitted himself in the proof of his charge we shall see anon For my own part I dislike not his or any other mans Zeal against Errors and Heresies provided they will allow that liberty unto others which they assume to themselves to witness against that which they conceive Erroneous I cannot be perswaded by all that Mr. W. hath yet said That this Tenent of Justification in foro Dei without Works or Conditions performed by us is an Error much less an Antinomian Error If we may judge of it by those general Diagnosticks which Divines have given us to discern between Truth and Error I am sure it hath the complexion of a saving truth That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ is certainly true and the contrary is as certainly false Let that sayes Bradwardine be acknowledged for the true Religion which gives most glory unto God and renders God most favorable and gracious unto man Now let such as are least in the Church judge which Opinion gives most glory unto God Either 1 that which ascribes the whole Work of our Salvation to the Grace of God and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ or 2 that which makes men Moral causes of their own salvation which ascribes no more unto Christ then the purchasing of a new way whereby we may be saved if we perform the terms and conditions required of us If the former in his Judgement be Antinomianism I shall freely profess That by it alone though he call it Heresie I have hope of Life and Salvation § 3. I am sure he is greatly mistaken if he derives the descent of this Doctrine from the Antinomians who were a Sect of Libertines or carnal Gospellers which appeared in Germany soon after the Reformation began scil about the year 1538 The Ring-leader whereof was Islibius Agricola the Compiler of the Interim they merited this name of Antinomians by their loose Opinions and looser Practises against whom Luther wrote several Books and Calvin bitterly inveighed in
confidence towards God to purifie our hearts and to work by love c. They are all of them promoted and furthered by the Doctrine we teach for what is it that gives us boldness towards God but the merit and perfection of Christs sacrifice whereby the mouth of the Law is stopped the accusations of Satan are all answered and the justice of God is fully satisfied Again What other means is there so effectual to purifie our hearts to constrain us to love him c. as the freeness absoluteness and immutability of his love to us who whilest we were sinners and enemies reconciled us to himself by the Blood of the Cross and blotted out our sins as if they had never been committed § 10. Mr. Cr. censure of Curcellaeus's Opinion is just and seasonable who judgeth these Differences amongst Christians about Justification to be of so small concernment that they ought not to breed a controversie For surely they are none of those foolish questions and strivings which we are bid to avoid if there be any point in the whole Doctrine of Godliness for which we ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Jude speaks to contend earnestly This challengeth our utmost zeal for the maintenance of it seeing the glory of Gods Grace the dignity of Christs Blood and the comfort of our own souls lies at stake in the issues of it our life peace and everlasting Salvation is concerned herein There is no truth that the Apostle doth so frequently press and so earnestly contend for as this Article of our Free Justification That no works of ours do concur to the procuring of it Mr. Calvin hath observed That if we were accorded with the Church of Rome in all other points save in this one particular the distance between them and us is so great That it is impossible we should ever be reconciled And I must needs say That I see no material difference between them and our Adversaries about this matter § 11. Mr. Cr. in the close of his Prefatory Discourse tells the Reader Thou art beholding to the Learned Author for the penning of this Tract but for the publishing of it to another And Mr. W. hath framed it in the form of a Letter to a private Friend that the Reader might guess he had no hand at all in publishing of it whereas a near Kinsman of his assured me That Mr. W. in a Letter to himself had confessed that his Sermon came abroad by his own appointment which I do the rather believe knowing his relation to the Stationer for whom it was Printed However I am glad that it is made publick that this point may be the better cleared by a deliberate examination of the utmost that can be said against it onely I wish that this task had lighted upon some other man who hath more leisure and better abilities to undertake it that so precious a truth might not suffer through the unskilfulness of a feeble Advocate How much the Reader is beholding to Mr. W. for Penning or Printing of his Sermon will appear in the issue of this debate CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Introduction Text Doctrine and Proofs are briefly considered HAving passed Mr. Woodbridges Out-works we shall now proceed to survey the Fort it self which in his own conceit is built so impregnable That nothing consistent with the Scriptures can be brought against it How ever I am not discouraged from attempting it knowing That strong holds more unlikely to be vanquished have been laid flat and level with the ground Lam. 4.12 2 Cor. 10.4 5. In his Preface he tells the worthy Sir to whom he communicated his Notes That he will not trouble him with his Introduction to the Text or the Applicatory part of his Sermon It was very little that he spake in either but I well remember that he began and concluded with a great mistake In his Introduction he told us that the scope of this Epistle was to prove That we are justified by Faith i. e. as he explained it That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe and that Faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification whereas the scope of the Apostle as shall be shewn more largely hereafter was not to assert the time of our Justification but the matter of it he intended not to shew when but wherewith we are justified to wit not by Works or Righteousness in us but by the Righteousness of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by Faith By taking Faith in a proper sense as a condition required on our part he accuseth the Apostle of Self-contradiction who all along denies That we are justified by works seeing Faith considered as a condition is a work of ours no less then love In that part of his Application where he addressed himself to unbelievers he told them That Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which was all one as if he had said Christ did not die for them and that they had no more ground to believe in him then the Devils themselves and consequently that their case was desperate and irrecoverable though final unbelievers have not Christ for their High Priest for he neither died nor prayed for them Joh. 17.9 Yet he performed both acts of his Priesthood scil Oblation and Intercession for all that were given him by the Father long before the Conversion of many of them He laid down his life not onely for those sheep that were called but for those also that were not then gathered into his fold Joh. 10.15 16. And in the seventeenth of John he says expresly That he prayed not onely for them that did believe but for them also that should believe in him Vers. 20. Though it be true That Christ shed not his Blood for Reprobates yet we know not who are reprobated until it shall be made manifest by their final unbelief Indeed we cannot say to an unbeliever That Christ did die for him and we have as little reason to say That Christ did not die for him seeing the Word doth reveal neither and by affirming the latter we do quite bar up the door of Hope which ought to be held open to the worst of sinners Our duty is to declare That Christ is come into the world to save sinners and to exhort all men every where to believe him We were as good bid the Devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High Priest it is in vain for any to believe in Christ if he never prayed nor offered up himself a Sacrifice unto God for them but seeing Mr. W. hath not troubled his Friend with these passages I shall not trouble the Reader any longer about them § 2. That the Saints or true Believers under which notion he writes to the Romans are justified by Faith We do readily yeeld it to be a truth
it being in terminis in the Text. I dare say no man that is called a Christian did ever deny it and therefore he might have spared his pains in transcribing any more places of Scripture for confirmation of it But I do much marvel That so learned a man as Mr. W. who pretends to be more then ordinarily accurate should take in hand a controverted Text and never open the Terms nor state the Question which he meant to handle for though it be a sinful curiosity for men by Dicotomies and Tricotomies Divisions and Subdivisions to mince and crumble the Scriptures till it hath lost the sense yet surely a workman that needs not to be ashamed ought rightly to divide the Word of Truth explain things that are obscure and dubious and where divers senses are given as he knows there are of this Text to disprove the false and confirm that which he conceives is true § 3. There is a vaste distance between the Apostles Proposition a man is justified by Faith and Mr. Woodbridges Inference Ergo Justification doth in no sence precede Faith Justification by Faith and Justification before Faith are not opposita but diversa though they differ yet they are not contradictory to each other The Scriptures which prove the former intend no strife or quarrel against the latter in a word The proof of the one doth not disprove the other The Scripture which he made his theam Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith we have peace with God c concludes nothing at all against Justification before Faith For 1 we may without any violence to the Text place the Comma after justified as thus Being justified by Faith we have peace with God This reading is agreeable both to the Apostles scope and to the Context His scope here was not to shew the efficacy of Faith in our Justification but what benefits we have by the death of Christ the first of which is Justification and the consequent thereof is peace with God Again the Illative Particle Therefore shews that this place is a Corollary or Deduction from the words immediately foregoing which ascribed our Justification wholly to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Chap. 4 ult The Apostle thence infers Being justified q. d. Seeing we are justified freely without works by the death of Christ by Faith we have peace with God the Lord powerfully drawing our hearts to believe this we have boldness and confidence towards God the cause of fear being taken away or as the Syriack and vulgar Latin read it Let us have peace with God let us by Faith improve this Grace for the establishing of our hearts in perfect peace Now according to this reading his own Text will give in evidence against him That Faith is not the cause or antecedent but an effect and consequent of our Justification procured and obtained by the death of Christ. But 2 if we take the words as commonly they are read the sence comes all to one scil That being justified by Christ who is the sole object of our Faith we have peace with God who by the Faith which he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation by vertue whereof our Conscience is so firmly grounded that we are not moved by any temptation or beaten down by any terror The Work of Faith is not to procure our Justification but to beget peace in our Consciences So then the words being rightly understood they neither deny Justification before Faith nor assert Justification by the act or habit of Faith which Mr. W. would conclude from thence § 4. The next Scripture whose suffrage is desired against us is Gal. 2.16 We have believed in Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. Where sayes Mr. W. Justification is expresly made a Consequent of Faith To which I Answer 1 That this doth no more infer That we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5.44 45. Love your enemies c. that ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before adoption contrary to Eph. 1.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.3 the phrase that ye may be there is as much as that ye may be manifested and declared that ye may shew your selves or that all men may know that ye are the children of God by practising a duty so much above the reach of Nature and Morality A like place we have Rom. 3.26 God set forth his Son to declare his Righteousness that he might be just Now shall we hence infer That God was not just before or that Gods justice was a consequent of his sending Christ Now if we can understand that clause that he might be just That he might be known and acknowledged to be just Why may we not as well take this of the Apostle that we might be justified in the same construction that we might know that we are justified and live in the comfort and enjoyment of it So that not the Being of our Justification but the Knowledge and Feeling of it is a consequent of Faith Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known to be so John 15.8 our Saviour tells the Disciples That if they did bear much fruit they should be his Disciples i. e. They should be known and manifested to be his Disciples as Chap. 13.35 Our Saviour is said at his Resurrection to have become the Son of God Acts 13.33 Because then as the Apostle speaks he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God Rom. 1.3 Again things are saâ—d not to be which do not appear as Melchisedec is said to be without Father and Mother c. Heb. 7.3 Because his Linage and Pedigree is not known so we are said to be justified or not justified according as this Grace is revealed to us But 2 in the Text it is We have believed that we might be justified by Faith so that from hence it can be inferred onely That we are not justified by Faith before believing and that the sentence of Justification is not terminated in our Consciences before we do believe § 5. His next Proof is grounded upon the order of the words Rom. 8.30 As glory saith he follows Justification so doth Justification follow Vocation unto Faith Whereunto I answer 〈◊〉 That the order of words in Scripture do not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves The Jews have a Proverb Non esse prius aut posterius in Scriptura The first and last must not be strictly urged in Scripture for that is not always set first which is first in Nature If we should reason from the order of words in Scripture we should make many absurdities as 1 Sam. 6.14 It is said that they clave the Wood of the Cart and offered the Kine for a burnt offering unto the Lord And then in the next Verse it follows That the Levites took down the Ark out of the Cart as
by Justification we are to understand a Justification in the Court of Conscience or the Evidence and Declaration of a Justification already past before God So that Faith is said to justifie us not because it doth justifie us before God but because it doth declare to our Consciences that we are justified Now because this report is very imperfect I shall crave the patience of the Reader whilest I declare our Judgement a little more fully concerning this Matter together with the Grounds and Reasons that do uphold it and then I shall return to secure this Answer against the Exceptions Mr. W. hath made against it But first I shall shew the several Explications which Divines have given of his Proposition A man is justified by Faith CHAP. VI. The several Opinions of Divines touching the meaning of this Position A man is justified by Faith THe Question depending between me and Mr. W. is not Whether we are justified by Faith which the Scripture frequently affirms and no man that I know denies it Papists and Protestants Orthodox and Socinians Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants do unanimously consent That we are justified by Faith All the difference is about the Sense and Meaning of this Proposition A man is justified by Faith Whether Faith therein be to be taken Properly or Tropically For though there be great variety in Expression amongst Divines concerning this Matter yet all their several Opinions and Explications may be reduced unto these two heads The first takes Faith in sensu proprio for the act or habit of Faith the other takes Faith metonymicè relativè for the object of Faith i. e. The obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. § 2. Our Protestant Divines who have hitherto been counted Orthodox do take Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith in a Tropical and Fâ—gurative Sence as thus A man is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we relie for Life and Righteousness Nor is this any unusual Trope either in Scripture or in other Authors to put Habitum vel actum pro objecto as Rom. 8.24 Hope that is seen is not hope i. e. The thing that is seen is not hoped for Christ is oftentimes called our Hope our Joy our Love c. because he is the object of these Acts and Affections when the same thing is attributed distinctly both to the act and the object it must needs be attributed to one in a proper and to the other in an improper sence and therefore says Dr. Downham When Justification is attributed to Faith it cannot be attributed in the same sence as to the death and obedience of Christ in propriety of Speech but of necessity it is to be understood by a Metonymy Faith being put for the object of Faith which is the Righteousness of Christ c. And holy Pemble If we list not to be contentious it is plain enough saith he that in those places where the Apostle treats of Justification by Faith he means the Grace of God in Jesus Christ opposing Works and Faith that is the Law and the Gospel the Righteousness of the Law to the Righteousness of the Gospel which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus saith he Faith is taken Gal. 3.23 before Faith came i. e. Before Christ came and the clear exhibition of his Righteousness And in this sence as another hath observed it is used at least thirteen times in this Chapter where the Apostle expresly treats of our Justification before God Albertus Pighius though a Papist was so far convinced of this truth by reading of Calvins Institutions that he acknowledged If we speak formally and properly we are justified neither by Faith nor Charity but by the onely Righteousness of Christ communicated to us and by the onely mercy of God forgiving our sins § 3. Some of our Divines who do utterly deny That Faith in this Question is taken sensu proprio or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness do yet ascribe an instrumentallity or inferior causality unto Faith it self in our Justification before God They say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively which terms I confess sound harshly in my ears but I hope I shall be excused if I do not understand them seeing a far learneder man then my self hath professed That they were not very intelligible to him That Faith is taken relatively in this Question of Justification to wit For the object it relates unto Christ and his Righteousness I do readily grant but that it justifies us Relatively I cannot assent to it for it seems to me to carry this sence with it either 1 that Faith doth procure our Justification though not by its own worth and dignity yet through the vertue and merit of its object As the Papists say of Works That they do justifie and save us tincta sanguine Christi being dipped in the Blood of Christ Or 2 that Faith together with Christ its object doth make us just in the sight of God whereby it is made a social cause with the blood of Christ which shall be sufficiently disproved anon Again that Faith is a passive Instrument of our Justification to wit such an Instrument whereby we receive and apply this benefit to our selves was shewn before but that it is an active efficacious Instrument to make us just and righteous in the sight of God is no part of my Creed For 1. it seems to me a contradiction to say That Faith is not to be taken sensu proprio but metonymicè for the object thereof and yet say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally for it is not the object but the act of Faith which is an Instrument Faith considered as an Instrument is taken sensu proprio and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they disclaim must be said to justifie 2. Mr. Baxter in my judgement disputes rationally against this notion If Faith saith he be the Instrument of our Justification it is the Instrument either of God or man not of man for Justification is Gods act he is the sole Justifier Rom. 3.26 man doth not justifie himself not of God for it is not God that believeth To which I adde that God neither needs nor is capable of using an Instrument in the act of justifying for though he useth Instruments to declare and reveal this Grace to sinners yet not to will it to particular persons the acts of his will are not wrought by any Organ or Instrument without himself 3. By making Faith the Instrument of our Justification Justification is made the Effect and Faith the Cause and so consequently a man shall be said to justifie himself whereas the Scripture every where ascribes our Justification unto God and Christ making
us totally passive in this work Rom. 3.24 26. 8.33 Eph. 2.8 We can no more justifie our selves then raise our selves from the dead Eph. 2.1 5. or then we could give our selves a being when as yet we were not Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total or principal Cause of his Justification that he is no cause at all by ascribing the least causality or efficiency to man in his Justification we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. § 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence as the Papists Socinians and Remonstrants amongst whom though there be some difference in Expression yet they all agree in this That by Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith is meant the act or habit of Faith or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions The Papists say That Faith and other inherent Graces though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification yet through the merits of Christ and Gods gracious acceptance they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith it is but in a qualified sence Faith saith Bellarmine doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem after a manner merit remission scil By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition If a King saith he doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it but if it be upon condition that he do some small matter as to come and fetch it or to bring him a Posie of flowers then he doth deserve it because the promiser is bound unto performance And in this sence Mr. B. ascribes a meritoriousness to works But the chief difference between them and us lies in this We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness they That we are justified by inherent Righteousness or by doing of Righteous Actions such as are Faith Love Fear c. Ipsa fides in Christum saith Bellarmine est justitia Faith it self is our righteousness And that it doth justifie us impetrando promerendo inchoando â—ustificationem Arminius and the Remonstrants though they have exploded the word merit yet they attribute as much to Faith and faithful Actions as the Papists themselves Dico saith Arminius ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputari in justitiam idquè sensu proprio non metonymicè The very same is affirmed by Vorstius Bertius Episcopius and the rest of the Remonstrants Their Opinion in brief is this That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which say they is procured by the merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect Righteousness § 5. Some of our late Divines who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians say the very same who explain themselves to this effect That Faith doth justifie as a condition or antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The fulfilling of which condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God Mr. B. is so fond of this notion That although in one place he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions yet he would have this made an article of our Creed a part of our Childrens Catechisms and to be believed by every man that is a Christian so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed I shall prove anon That Faith is not said to justifie as an antecedent condition which qualifies us for Justification but at present I shall onely render him the Reasons of my disbelief Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified I shall not insist upon it though it be not altogether unconsiderable that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith for though it is no good Argument to say That Papists Socinians c. do hold this or that therefore it is not true yet it will follow That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers therefore they ought to be the more suspected and especially such Tenents of theirs as are the cheif points in difference between us and them as this is Our Brethren that have started this notion do take Faith as the others do in a proper sence they attribute as much to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as Bellarmine Arminius or any other Faith it self says Mr. B. is our Righteousness There was never any Papist so absurd as to say That our Faith Love c. are perfect Legal Righteousness but that God judicio misericordiae non justitiae doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness For my part I must confess that I can see no dâ—fference between them but in Expression The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification They say indeed That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed but by a Righteousness inherent in us or righteous actions performed by us And what do our Brethren say less less then this But I shall not follow the Parallel any further § 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion That our Faith or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified Are 1. If we are not justified by our own works then our believing c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified but we are not justified by our own works Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture Tit. 3.5 Not by works of Righteousness which we have done Rom. 11.6 If it be of Works then were Grace no more Grace It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this and the Epistle to the Galatians to prove That we are not justified by works The sequel of the Proposition is as evident Because Faith and Obedience to Gospel Precepts are our works It is man that believes and obeys and not God though we do them by his help and assistance yet they are our acts or works so that consequently we are not justified by them in the sight of God The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say That the minde of the Apostle was onely to exclude from Justification works of Nature and not of Grace works which we our selves do by our own strength without the help
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
of the Act or of the Object of Faith We have shewed before that the Apostle in his disputes about Justification in these fore-mentioned Epistles where he opposeth Faith to Works he takes Faith in a Tropical sense for the Object and not the Act of Faith for else there had been no ground for him to make any opposition at all between Faith and Works and in affirming That we are justified by Faith he had contradicted himself in saying That we are not justified by Works seeing Faith or the Act of Believing is a work of ours no less then love And therefore it is evident that the Apostle when he concludes That we are justified by Faith and not by Works understands by Faith the Object thereof to wit Righteousness imputed and not inherent which by way of distinction and opposition to the other he calls the Righteousness of God because it is out of us in Christ God-man The reason why the Apostle calls the Object by the name of the Act Christs Righteousness by the name of Faith besides the elegancy of the Trope is because Faith ascribes all unto Christ it being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despair a denying and renouncing of all fitness and worthiness in our selves a going unto Christ looking towards him and a roulling of our selves upon his Alsufficiency So that in the Apostles sense we deny not That Faith justifieth in the sight of God Faith I say taken objectively to wit For Christ and his Righteousness it is for his Merits and Satisfaction alone that we are accounted Just and Righteous at Gods Tribunal But if Faith be taken properly for the Act of Believing we say indeed That it onely evidenceth that Justification which we have in Christ. Nor is this any contradiction to the Holy Ghost who ascribes our Justification in the sight of God to Chrâ—st alone § 2. Next he calls it A most unsound Assertion That Faith doth evidence our Justification before Faith Is the Apostles definition of Faith Heb. 11.1 Faith is the evidence of things not seen An unsound Assertion Though some do ascribe more to Faith then an Act of evidencing yet I never met with any one before that did totally deny this use thereof All the knowledge that we have of our Justification is onely by Faith seeing it cannot be discerned by Sence or Reason either we have no evidence of our Justification and consequently do live without hope or if we have it is Faith that doth evidence it to our souls Now let our Justification be when it will if Faith doth evidence it it will follow That our Justification was before that Evidencing act of Faith for actuâ— pendet ab objecto the Object is before the Act. But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridges Reasons § 3. If sayes he Faith doth evidence our Justification it is either improperly as an effect doth argue the cause as laughing and crying may he said to evidence reason in a Childe c. Or else properly and thus either immediately and axiomatically or remotely and syllogistically 1 Faith doth not evidence Justification improperly as the Effect doth argue the Cause I shall readily grant him that Faith doth not justifie evidentially as a mark sign or token but as a knowledge and adherence unto Christ our Justifier as that Organ or Instrument whereby we look not upon our Faith but upon Christ our Righteousness and by the same Faith do cleave unto him They that make Faith a condition of our Justification use it but as a sign or as an argument affected to prove That a person is justified seeing that where one is the other is also where there is Faith there is Justification and for this cause innumerable other signs and marks are brought in to evidence this sign which are more obscure and difficult to be known then Faith it self nay which cannot be known to be effects of Blessedness but by Faith whereby poor souls either walk in darkness live in a doubting and uncertain condition all their days or else compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling and walk in the light of their own fire fetching their comfort from Faith and not by Faith from Christ. Though I might fairly pass by this Branch of his Dilemma it being none of my Tenent and favored more by his own then my opinion yet I shall briefly give my fence of his Reasons That Faith doth not evidence Justification as a sign § 4. His first Reason is because then Justification by Faith would not necessarily be so much as Justification in our Consciences A Christian may have Faith and yet not have the evidence that he himself is justified Many Christians have that in them which would prove them justified whiles yet their Consciences do accuse and condemn them To which I Answer 1. That Mr. W. may be pleased to consider how well this agrees with that passage of his Pag. 15. Where he alledgeth the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.20 to prove That if our hearts do condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. I should grant him That if Faith did evidence our Justification onely as a sign or some remote effect thereof like other works of Sanctification it would be but a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Whereas he sayes That doubting Christians have something in them that would prove them justified either it is something that precedes Faith or something that follows Faith or else Faith it self First Nothing that precedes Faith doth prove a man justified secondly Nothing that follows Faith is so apt to prove it as Faith it self because it is the first of all Inherent Graces it is by Faith that we know our Love Patience c. to be Fruits unto God whereas some make doubting to be a sign of Faith they may as well make darkness a sign of light it being in its own nature contrary thereunto and therefore it must be proved by Faith it self 4. Though a true Christian may have a doubting accusing Conscience as doubtless there is flesh and corruption in their Consciences as well as in their other faculties and there is no sin whereunto we have more and stronger temptations then to unbelief yet wheresoever there is Faith there is some evidence of this Grace as in the least spark of fire there is light though not so much as in a flame And the least twinkling Star gives us some light though not enough to dispel the darkness or to make it day There are several degrees of Faith there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong Faith and a weak Faith Now the least degree of Faith carries some light and evidence therewith and according to the measure of Faith is the evidence and perswasion of our Justification § 5. Secondly He urgeth If Faith did evidence Justification as an effect of it then we might as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to
be justified by our Faith I see no absurdity at all to say That Faith is from Justification causally and Justification by Faith evidentially That Grace which justifies us is the Cause and Fountain of all good things whatsoever both of Spiritual and Temporal Blessings and more especially of Faith 2 Pet. 1.1 Phil. 1.29 Yet doth it not follow That We must invert the order of the Gospel and instead of saying Believe and thou shalt be justified we must say hence forward Thou art justified therefore believe 1 Because it is not the priviledge of all men to whom we Preach but onely of the Elect of God And 2 because we know not who are justified no more then who are elected though Faith be an effect or sign of Election yet it doth not follow that we must say to any Thou art elected therefore believe 3 When the cause is not notior effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause as in the present case § 6. Thirdly He loads it with this seeming absurdity That then it will unavoidably follow That we are justified by works as well as by Faith for works are an effect of Justification as well as Faith 1 It follows unavoidably from his own opinion For if Faith be taken in a proper sence for the Act of Believing it follows That we are justified by a work of our own or if Faith be the condition of Justification it will follow likewise That we are no more justified by Faith then by other works as Repentance Charity c. Which Mr. W. and others of his strain do make the conditions of their supposed Justification so that he is like to father the Childe which he hath sought to lay at our doors 2 It is not denied That Works do declare and evidence our Justification where the Apostle denies our Justification to be by Works he speaks of our real and formal Justification in the sight of God which he affirms is by Faith scil Objectively taken and not of the declaring or evidencing of our Justification which Saint James in his Epistle attributes to Works in reference to men and other Scriptures to Faith in reference to the Conscience of the person justified Romans 1.17 Galatians 2.16 3 Though works be the effect of justification as well as faith yet it will no follow that works do evidence our justificationas well as faith doth 1 Because every effect is not apt to evidence its cause especially when the same effect may proceed from severall causes as smoak is not so certaine an evidence of fire as light and heat is because steems and mists are so like to smoak so works do not evidence our justification so clearly and certainly 〈◊〉 Faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality c. as those Heathens have performed 2 Because every effect doth not evidence to every faculty a like but this to one and that to another as for instance forme or Physiognomy doth evidence a man to sence but yet reason requires another manner of evidence so conscience requires a better evidence of our justification then works can give Workâ— do evidence it in the judgement of charity and before men but they do not evidence it in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires conscience will need a better evidence then works can give Paul could plead his works before men 2 Cor. 1.12 which yet he never mentions in the pleas of his conscience towards God and that which conscience dares not plead before God can bee no good evidence unto conscience § 7. The other horn of his Dilemma will be frayd as easily as the former Faith saith he doth not evidence justification properly for then it must doe it either immediately and Axiomatically as it is an assent to this Proposition I am justified or else remotely and syllogistically by drawing a particular conclusion of our own justification out of generall propositions But Faith doth not evidence our justification Axiomatically c. For 1 There is no such thing written the Scripture doth no where say Thou Paul thou Peter or thou Thomas art justified Ergo Justification cannot be evidenced by Faith immediately Mr. W. here mistakes the nature of true justifying Faith who it seems conceives it to be a bare intellectuall assent to the truth of a Proposition such as Devils and Reprobates may attaine unto contrary to all Orthodox Divines who doe place Faith more in the Will then in the Understanding Justifying Faith essentially include 1. An assent of the understanding to the truth of the Scriptures revealing the sole-sufficiency of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners and the non-imputation of sin as also the will and command of God that all men should beleeve in him alone for life and salvation 2 a Fiduciall adherence and reliance of the will upon the same Christ the understanding being made effectually to assent and subscribe to the fore-mentioned propositions sub ratione veri the will is also powerfully drawne to accept imbrace and adhere unto Christ sub natione boni Our Divines doe include both these acts in the definition of Faith making it to be fiducialis assensus or assensus cum gustu such an assent unto the truths of the Gospell as that withall the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and thereupon â—esteth and relieth upon Christ for all the benefits of his death They make the principall act of Faith to be the reliance of the heart or wil upon Jesus Christ and therefore they determine that the object of Justifying Faith is not a Proposition or Axiom but Christ the mercy of God in Christ on whom whosoever rests and roules himselfe upon the call of the Gospel hath a certain evidence of his Interest in Christ and in all the treasures of righteousnesse and remission that are in him according to the degree of his affiance or his taste of sweetnesse in Christ is his evidence or assurance of his owne interest and propriety in him There is no sense that doth apprehend its object with more certainty then that of Tasting as he that tastes hony knows both the sweetnesse thereof and that he himselfe injoyes it So he that tastes the sweetnesse of the Gospell Promises and of that precious Grace which is therein revealed knows his interest and propriety therein It is observed of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.27 When he tasted a little hony his eyes were inlightned and the Psalmist exhorts us to taste and see how good the Lord is The soule that tastes i. e. beleeves the Gospell and the goodnesse of God therein revealed to sinners sees and knowes his interest therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing that causeth it unto which the nearer our interest is the greater is the sweetnesse which we find in it The Soul cannot taste
deserted a Congregation in New England whereof he was Pastor to become a Parish Parson in the Old and not onely so but hath stood to maintaine that Parishes are true Churches It is like Barford in Old England is if not a purer Church yet a better Parsonage then Andover in the New We are not much beholding to New England for such Reformers 2 If we may judge of a mans principles by his practise we should then believe that he himself holds Universal Justification at least within the bounds of his own Parish for as I am informed he makes no distinction at all in this behalf I am ashamed to hear men to talk of Reformation who tread Antipodes to it especially when they have liberty to follow the dictates of their Consciences But 3 I had thought he had known that de occultis non judicat ecclesia and that Election and Justification are not the rule of admitting persons into Church Communion but their found Profession and suitable Conversation A Reprobate or unjustified person may lawfully be admitted into and an Elect person may as lawfully be excluded out of a Church I dare not say That the excommunicated person at Corinth and others under that censure were not justified The evidence we have of mens Justification is but the judgement of rational charity and not of infallibility But enough of this I shall return again to his Brother B. W. who I suppose will not own such irrational consequences § 11. The other part of his contradiction is That Faith cannot evidence Justification Syllogistically to wit By the discourse of Conscience after this or the like manner He that believeth is justified but I believe Ergo I am justified Now says Mr. W. magisterially enough I affirm that it is impossible for a man by Faith to evidence syllogistically that he is justified before Faith Though I honor him highly I cannot rest satisfied with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what Reason doth he bring for his confident affirmation 1. Because there cannot be found a medium before Faith it self Ans. Nor is it needful there should 1 It is sufficient that Faith itself is the medium as thus He that believeth was justified before Faith but I do believe Ergo. The Major is proved because his sins were laid on Christ and thereby non-imputed to him 2 To imagine any other medium before Faith is frivolous for that were to require that Faith should evidence before Faith had a being 3 Why may not Faith be a medium to evidence our Justification before Faith as well as our Election before Faith Seeing the same word which affirms That all Believers were elected before the Foundations of the World affirms also That the Elect without exception are discharged and acquitted of their sins Rom. 8.33 Shall we reason thus Our Election cannot be evidenced before Faith Ergo We were not elected before Faith Mr. Woodbridges Arguing makes as much against evidencing Election before Faith as against the evidencing of our Justification before Faith Because there is no sort of persons of whom ELECTION can be affirmed universally but onely such as do believe seeing all the world is distributed into Believers and unbelievers but ELECTION cannot be affirmed of unbelievers universally It proves indeed That neither Election nor Justification are evident to us before we believe it doth not prove That by Faith we cannot evidence syllogistically that we were both elected and justified before we did believe As for that mad Syllogism as he calls it which follows All unbelievers are justified but I am an unbeliever Ergo. It is the off-spring of his own brain hatcht on purpose to make the matter ridiculous But we must excuse the luxuriousness of his wit seeing Nullum est magnum ingenium sine mixtura insaniae His other Syllogism which he hath framed to evidence Justification by Election as thus All the Elect are justified But I am elected Ergo was framed in the same mould A meer man of clouts which he himself created to shew his valor in beating of him We do not teach men to evidence Justification by Election but both Election and Justification by their Faith proceeding from the Effect to the Cause as we needs must when the Effect is more evident then the Cause Though I like not the Argument yet by his leave the Major is so far from being utterly false that it is justified by the express Testimony of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 But this is besides the purpose That miserable circle into which he pretends the poor restless doubting soul is conjured by our Doctrine is but a vertigo and whimsie in his own Pericrany We do neither bid men evidence their Justification by their Election nor their Election by their Justification but both Election and Justification by a stedfast adherence and reliance upon Jesus Christ and from thence to reason out our particular interest in these Blessed Priviledges as we do the Being of Causes by the proper Effects which flow from them § 12. His next Argument against Faiths evidencing Justification syllogistically if it be put into the scale of an impartial Judgement will appear as light as the former It runs thus If we are said to be justified by Faith because Faith doth evidence Justification syllogistically then we may be said to be justified by Sence and Reason as well as by Faith which is absurd This Consequence indeed is very absurd for the conclusion is of Faith and so adjudged by the Schools if the Major be of Faith else this conclusion I shall rise again from the dead were not of Faith because it is inferred partly by Sence and Reason as thus All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again Here the Major onely is of Faith the Minor is of Sence and yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith and not of Sence So in this Syllogism He that believes is justified But I do believe Ergo I am justified Though the Assumption be an act of Sence or spiritual Experience yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith because the Major is of Faith For though in both these Deductions Sence and Reason are made use of yet they are but subfervient Instruments and not the Authors of the Conclusion § 13. Mr. W. hath added a third Argument to prove That Justification by Faith is not meerly a Justification in our Consciences which I question not will prove as unsuccessful as the rest But by the way I cannot chuse but take notice that his spirit of contradiction is somewhat allayed For hitherto he hath contended That Justification by Faith is not in any sence a Justification in Conscience now he tells us it is not meerly a Justification in Conscience and if this will satisfie him it is like we shall agree for before we have shewn that when Faith is objectively taken Justification by Faith is Justification by Christ and in the sight of God and not onely in the Conscience And
this censure when he hath weighed the reasons I shall give That Faith cannot be said to Justifie by way of disposition or as a passive condition morally disposing us for Justification CHAP. IX That Faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie us for Justification IN regard that the main Point in difference between me and Mr. W. lyes at the bottom of this Answer I shall make it appear we are not said to be Justified by Faith in a Scripture sence because Faith is required of us as a passive condition to qualifie us for justification in the sight of God § 1. That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to Faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true The reason is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16.3.11 But to interpret justification by faith meerly thus That Faith is a condition to quâ—lifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of sanctification as to repentance charity and all other duties of new obedience which Mr. W. and others of the same affirmation make to be necessary antecedent conditions of Justification Mr. B. includes all works of obedience to evangelical precepts in the definition of Faith in which senâ—e I presume no Papist will deny that we are justified by Faiâ—h alone taking it as he doth for fides formata or faith animated with charity and other good works And therefore Bellarm. disputing against Justification by Faith alone sayes that if wee could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Justificationem which is granted him if Faith be an antecedent federal condition disposing us for it then we would never deny that love fear hope c. did justifie as well as Faith Dr. Hammond sayes expressely That neither Paul nor James doe exclude or separate faithfull actions or the acts of faith from Faith or the condition of Justification but absolutely require them as the onely things by which we are justified Which in another place he goes about to prove by this argument That without which we are not justified and by which joyned with Faith we are justified is not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition a man is justified But without acts of Faith or faithfull actions we are not justified and by them wee are justified and not by Faith onely Therefore faithfull actions or acts of Faith are not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the onely things by which as by a condition a man is justified It is evident that he and other abetters to this notion attribute no more to Faith in our Justification then to other works of sanctification Now this was witnessed against as an unsound opinion a pernicious error and utterly repugnant to the sacred Scriptures c. by Mr. Cranford amongst the London Subscribers Decemb. 14. 1647 and by Mr. W. himselfe if I mistake not amongst the Subscribers in other Counties It seems by Mr. W. they were bewitched when they gave their hands unto that Testimony § 2. That Interpretation of this phrase which gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature I meane such as may be found in naturall and unregenerate men is not true The Reason is because a man may have such works and yet not be justified But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a necessary antecedent condition of our Justification gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature as to sight of sin legall sorrow c. which have been found in naturall and unregenerate men as in Cain Saul Judas c. I presume Mr. W. will say that these are necessary antecedent conditions in every one that is justified for if these be conditions disposing us to Faith and Faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causae causae est causa causati if these legall works are conditions of Faith they must be according to Mr. Woodbridges Tenet conditions of Justification and consequently they are in eodem genere causae with Faith it selfe quod erat demonstrandum § 3. 3 That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a meer passive condition is not in the sence of our adversaries a proper efficient meritorious cause of Justification therefore wee are not said to bee justified by Faith as a passive condition or qualification required to make us capable of Justification The assumption is granted by our opponents at least verbo tenus who doe therefore call it a meer sine qua non which Logicians make to be causa ociosa nihil efficiens and a passive condition to exclude it from all manner of causality in producing the effect though for my own part I look upon conditions in contracts and covenants as proper efficient meritorious causes of the things covenanted which do produce their effects though not by their innate worth yet by vertue of the compact and agreement made between the parties covenanting But of this we shal have occasion to speak more by and by It remains only that I should clear the major that That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification which appears 1. By the use of these Propositions by and through in ordinary speech which note that the thing to which they are attributed is either a meritorious or instrumentall cause of the effect that follows as when we say a Souldier was raised by his valor it imports that his valor was the meritorious cause of his preferment and when we say a Tradesman lives by his Trade our meaning is that his Trade is the means or instrument by which he gets his living So here in the case before us when it is said a man is justified by Faith it implyes that Faith is either the meritorious or instrumentall cause of his Justification as if it be taken objectively for Christ and his merits it is the meritorious cause of our Justification in foro dei or if it be taken properly for the act of believing it is the instrumental cause of our Justification in foro conscientiae 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by Works and by the Law without doubt his intent was to exclude Works from any causal influx into our Justification Now that which he denies to Works he ascribes to Faith and therefore Justification by Faith implies that Faith in his sense hath a true causality or proper efficiency in our
Justification then God who made onely a conditional grant notwithstanding which he might have perished but he by performing the condition makes the grant to be absolute And truly sayes the same Author whosoever makes Faith the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect Obedience was the condition of the Old cannot avoid it but that man is justified chiefly by himself and his own acts not so much by Gods Grace in imputing Christs Righteousness but more by his own Faith which is his own act though of Gods work God by making his supposed gracious conditional promise doth not justifie any man for that makes no difference at all amongst persons It remains therefore that man must be said to justifie himself for where there is a promise of a Reward made to all upon condition of performing such a service he that obtains the reward gets it by his own service without which the promise would have brought him never a whit the nearer to the Reward Thus a man justifies himself by believing more a great deal then God justifies him by his promulgation of the conditional promise which would have left him in his old condition had not he better provided for himself by believing then God by promising as in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the new if it be a conditional promise it is not the promise that justifies a believer but the believer himself § 7. Mr. W. may as well call the Blood of Christ a Passive condition in our Justification because it did not make the Law nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution let the indifferent Reader consider whether this be not I will not say a childish but an impertinent answer which draws his former Concession quite aside from the matter now under debate for the question is not whether man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he hath any causal influx in producing the effect or whether before Justification he can or doth perform any condition to which God hath infallibly promised this Grace Which if granted will conclude That he is not Passive but Active in his Justification when our Protestant Divines say That a man is Passive in his first Conversion Their meaning is That he can perform no condition at all to which God hath inseparably annexed the Grace of Conversion So Cameron expresseth their sense and meaning Vocatio nullam poscit in objecto conditionem For though a man before conversion do perform many natural acts which have a remote tendency to this effect as Hearing Reading Meditating c. yet for all we say He is Passive therein because these are not such conditions to which God hath promised saving Grace So though a man doth never so many natural acts or duties whereunto God hath not immediately promised this priviledge he is but Passive for all in his Justification but if he do perform any condition to which Justification is promised then he is active and consequently may be said to justifie himself § 8. But says Mr. W. We do no more justifie our selves then we do glorifie our selves it is God alone doth both and we are Passive in both Pag 8. And again It is God that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we believe Pag. 10. First I shall readily grant him that we do neither justifie nor glorifie our selves seeing that we obtain neither of these benefits by our own works From the very beginning to the end of our Salvation nothing is primarily or causally Active but Free-grace all that we receive from God is gift and not debt Glory it self is not wages but Grace For though it be called The recompence of Reward Heb. 11.27 yet that is not to be understood in a proper sense as when the Reward is for the Work which may be two ways First When the work is proportionable to the wages as when a Laborer receives a shilling for a days work here the work doth deserve the wages because the work doth him that payes the wages as much good as the wages doth the worker Now surely no reward can come from the Creator to the Creature in this way bâ—cause no man can do any work that is profitable unto God Psal. 16.2 Job 22.3 35.8 Rom. 11 35. The very Papists will not say that Glory is a reward in this sense Works saith Bishop Gardner do not deserve Salvation as a Workman deserveth his wages for his labor Secondly When the work is not answerable to the wages but yet the wages is due by promise upon the performance of it as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an hours labor though the work be not worth it yet is it a due debt and he may challenge it as such because it was promised him In this sense neither is Glory a Reward for under the New Covenant Blessedness is not to him that worketh but to him that worketh not Rom. 4.5 We are saved by grace and not by works Tit. 3.5 Eph. 2.5 8. And saith the Apostle If by grace then it is no more of works Rom. â—1 6 But when Glory is called a Reward we are to understand it improperly as when a thing is called a Reward onely by way of Analogy and Resemblance because it comes after and in the place of the work as the nights rest may be called the Reward of the days labor because it succeeds it Thus is that of the Apostle to be taken 2 Thes. 1.7 And thus the Heir inheriting his Fathers Lands hath a Recompence or Reward of all the labor and service he hath done for his Father although he did not his service to that end neither doth the enjoyment of that inheritance hang upon that condition In this sense Eternal Lâ—fe and Glory may be called the Reward of our Works because it is a consequent of them not that our works have any influence either Physical or Moral to obtain it All things being given us in and for Christ alone Rom. 8.32 Eph. 1.3 And therefore it is called by the Apostle A reward of Inheritance Col. 3.24 Which comes to us not by working but by inheritance as we are the heirs of God and joynt heirs with Christ. If Glory were a Reward in a proper sense we might properly be said to save and glorifie our selves because we concurred to the Production of this effect but Mr. W. sayes well It is God that glorifies us Eternal Life is called his gift in opposition to wages Rom. 6.23 2 Tim. 4.8 It is solely the effect of Gods grace and Christs purchase though God doth glorifie us after working yâ—t not for any of those works which we have wrought though by the help and assistance of his own Spirit § 9. But yet secondly Though God doth not glorifie us before we believe yet it will not follow that he doth not justifie
us before we believe For first if we take Justification pro volitione Dei for the Will of God not to punish he cannot but know there is not the same reason of an immanent act of God which is Eternal and of a transient act which is in time or secondly if we take it pro re volita as it is the fruit and effect of Christs death it will not follow that because we have not Glorification before believing we have not Justification For though all the Blessings of the Covenant are given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order and method in bestowing of them He first gives us Grace imputed then Grace inherent and afterwards Eternal Glory And thus some Benefits of the Covenant are by some though improperly made conditions of the rest because they are first enjoyed § 10. That which Mr. W. addes Pag. 10. and wisheth may be seriously considered hath been considered already more then once If saith he Justification by Faith must be understood of Justification in our Consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for a Justification before God in all the Scriptures from the beginning to the end we read of no Justification in Scripture but by Faith or Works Mr. E. sayes he when the Scripture speaks of Justification by Works understands it of Justification before men when it speaks of Justification by Faith he understands it of Justification in our Consciences Now neither of these is Justification in the sight of God and verily neither of them of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4.3 The Antinomians may read out their eyes before they produce us one Text c. Had he reported my Judgement truly there had been no room for this Exception I have said indeed and by all that Mr. W. hath said against it I see no reason to change my minde that when the Scripture attributeth our Justification to Works as in the Epistle of James it is to be understood of our Justification before men when it ascribes it to Faith Faith is taken either properly or metonymically if it be taken properly for the act of Believing then it is to be understood of our Justification before God terminated in our Consciences or as it is revealed and evidenced to our selves Justification in Conscience is Justification before God as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper is one and the same this manifested and the other secret He that is justified in his Conscience is justified before God and Faith apprehends that which doth not onely justifie us in our Consciences but before God Or if Faith be taken metonymically for its object then Justification by Faith is Justification before God for it is Justification by the Merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and in many other such places § 11. But says Mr. W. Justification before men and in our Consciences are neither of them of much worth in the Apostles Judgement 1 Cor. 4 3. 1. I wish that Justification with men were of less account with Mr. W. He best knows whether Conscience of vindicating the truth or popular affectation put him upon this engagement I am sure the former would not have tempted him to those incivilities he hath offered unto me and others whom I doubt not but God will know by other names then he is pleased to cast upon us If the later or a desire of ingratiating himself with some of my Opposers did spur him forward though he hath Justification before men which yet I assure him is not Universal no not amongst many that do wish him well I dare say he is not justified in the Court of Conscience and if our heart c. 1 Joh. 3.20 2. But doth the Apostle account neither of these Justifications much worth Let Mr. W. judge in what account he had Justification before men by what he sayes 2 Cor. 1.12 1 Cor. 9.15 And Justification in Conscience by those blessed Effects he ascribes unto it Rom. 5.1 23. see 1 John 3.21 3. It is true 1 Cor. 43. he sayes That he cares not to be judged of mans judgement or of mans day The meaning is That he did not regard the sinister Judgements and Censures of carnal Christians who praise and dispraise upon light and trivial inducements like them Chap. 1. v. 12. Yea sayes he I judge not my self q. d. I am not solicitous nor do I enter into consideration what degree of honor or esteem I am worthy of amongst or above my fellows Now what is this to the purpose What is this to the Justification of his person in the Court of Conscience by Faith or the Justification of his Faith and Sincerity towards men by Works I must needs say with a very worthy Divine That no small portion of favor consists in a Sence and Knowledge of the kindness of God in its actings terminated upon the Conscience however Mr W. is pleased to value it § 12. In his next Passage he gives us a Youthful Frolick to shew his gallantry like Mr. Baxters challenge Let the Antinomians shew one Scripture which speaks of Justification from Eternity The Antinomians saith he the Anti-Papists and Anti-Arminians he means may read their eyes out before they produce us one Text for any other Justification in Scripture which is not by Faith or Works 1 Though the Antinomians are so blinde that they cannot finde one Text for this purpose yet he himself is such a quick-sighted Linceus that he hath discovered more then one For Pag. 23. he tells us of a threefold Justification and yet neither of them is by Faith or Works I hope he hath not read out his eyes to finde them out 2 In what sence the Scripture asserts Justification before Faith or Works hath been shewn before but 3 if I may be so bold I would ask how long the Anti-Gospellers may read before they produce one plain Text for any of those Dictates they would thrust upon us That Justification doth in no sence precede the act of Faith that Christ purchased onely a conditional not an absolute Justification for Gods Elect that our Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified is in our selves that the tenor of the New Covenant is If thou believe c. That God hath made a Covenant with Christ that none should have any benefit by his death till they do believe Cum multis aliis quae nunc c. § 13. Mr. W. thinks he hath sufficiently cleared the coast of this Exception That Faith in a proper sence is said to justifie in respect of its evidencing property or because it declares and applies to our Consciences that perfect Justification which we have in Christ. But by his leave it is like to be a bone for him to pick till the Index Expurgatorius hath
till it looks unto him in whose wounds and stripes is the healing of sinners 3. This very comparison doth make against him as the Israelites were alive when they looked upon the Brazen Serpent or else they could not have seen it So they that â—â—ok upon Jesus Christ i. e. Believe in him are spiritually alive or else they could not put forth such a vital act It is said indeed Numb 21.9 that when any man that was bitten beheld the Serpent of Brass he lived i. e. He was healed or had ease from his anguish so they that by Faith look up unto the Antitype they finde ease and rest for their wearied souls they do then live i. e. they have the comfort and enjoyment of that life which before they had in Christ. A man is said to live when he lives comfortably and happily § 2. 4. Mr. W. to make the comparison suit hath falsified the Text Joh. 6 40. The words are It is the Will of God that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life it is not may be justified as he corrupts it 5 Whereas he sayes Faith is compared to eating and Justification to nourishment Joh. 6.51 It is a mistake like the former for it is Christ himself who throughout that Chapter is compared to bread and food whom by Faith we receive for our refreshment consolation and spiritual nourishment § 4. His fourth Argument is drawn from the perpetual opposition between Faith and Works from whence he reasons thus What place and order works had to Justification in the Covenant of Works the same place and order Faith hath to our Justification in the Covenant of Grace But Works were to go before our Justification in the Covenant of Works Ergo Faith is to go before our Justification in the Covenant of Grace I answer That his Major is extreamly gross I dare say a more unsound Assertion cannot be picked out of the Writings either of the Papists or Arminians then this is That Faith taking it as he doth in a proper sence hath the same place in the Covenant of Grace as works have in the Covenant of Works That I have not charged him too high will appear to any one that shall consider these few particulars First Works in the first Covenant are meritorious of Eternal life he that doth the works required in the Law may in strictness of Justice claim the promise as a due debt Rom. 4.4 Was ever any Protestant heard to say That Faith and Faithful actions which as hath been shewn men of his notion do include in Faith do merit Eternal life Secondly Works in the first Covenant are the matter of our Justification he that doth them is thereby constituted just and righteous in the sight of God Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law so that whosoever keeps the Law must needs be righteous But now Faith is not the matter of our Righteousness God doth not account men righteous for their Faith I confess he hath Bellarmine and Arminius on his side who say that ipsa fides or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in justitiam but the Apostle hath taught us other Doctrine Rom. 5.19 That by the obedience of one i. e. of Christ many are made righteous And 2 Cor. 5.21 That we are made the Righteousness of God in him Thirdly If Faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as Works in the first then must God account Faith to be perfect Righteousness which is contrary to his Truth and Justice To say that Faith is perfect Righteousness by the second Covenant though not by the first is but petitio principii Legal and Evangelical Righteousness being one and the same as to the matter of Righteousness though they are inherent in divers subjects The first Covenant requires a Righteousness in us the second gives and accepts a Righteousness which is anothers Fourthly If Faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as Works had in the first then were the second Covenant a Covenant of Works seeing Faith is a work and a work of ours So that by this means the two Covenants should be confounded nor would the latter be any whit more of Grace then the former Fifthly This Assertion makes Faith to be not of Grace because not from the Covenant of Grace seeing the Covenant it self depends upon it How contrary this Doctrine is to the sense of our Protestant Divines hath in part been shewed before who till this last Age have taught that these two Propositions A man is justified by Works and A man is justified by Faith do carry meanings utterly opposite to one another The one is proper and formal the other is metonymical and relative In this Proposition A man is justified by Works we are to take all in a plain and literal sence That God doth account him that hath kept the Law exactly in all points a righteous person and consequently worthy of Eternal life but now that other Proposition A man is justified by Faith we must understand it Relatively thus That a sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ which we receive and apply unto our selves by true Faith § 4. Let us now hear what Mr. W. hath to say for the defence of his Major which treads Antipodes to the current of all out Protestant Writers If saith he the Minor be granted the Major must be out of Question I must confess if confidence did prove here were proof enough That which he addes hath as little weight as 1 Why should not Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved which is the tenor of the New Covenant Rom. 10.6 9. plead as strongly for the antecedency of Faith to Iustification in this Covenant as do this and live doth evince that works were necessary antecedents of Justification in the Old Covenant Answ. Here he takes for that granted which will certainly be denied scil That believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the tenor of the New Covenant for 1 it is no where called so 2 where the New Covenant is recited as Jer. 31. Heb. 8. it runs quite in another strain it doth not promise Salvation upon condition of Faith but Faith and Salvation and all other Blessings present and future That Text Rom. 10.6 9. is not the tenor of the New Covenant for that requires Confession as well as Faith and then the Justification of the New Covenant should be called Justification by Confession as well as by Faith The Apostle there describes the persons that shall be saved they are such as do believe and profess the truth His scope as our Divines have noted is to resolve that grand and important Question How a man may know that he shall be saved You need not sayes he to ascend into Heaven or descend into
Hâ—ll c. to fetch Christ himself to tell you by immediate Revelation whether you shall be justified and saved we have neerer and more certain evidences He that believes with the heart c. In this Scripture he gives us two marks or characters of a true Christian one Internal known onely to the Christian himself Believing with the heart the other External or visible to men Confession with the mouth But of this we shall have occasion to speak more anon § 5. 2 He urgeth That Faith and Works have the like order to Justification in their respective Covenants or else Justification by Faith and Justification by Works were not opposed as they constantly are in the Apostles Writings c. We grant that there is a true and formal opposition between Faith and Works The Affirmative which the Jews pleaded for That a man is justified by Works and the Negative which the Apostle contended for That a man is not justified by Works but by Faith are as opposite as East and West and as impossible to be reconciled as light and darkness But then Faith must be taken Objectively and not Properly for that which is formally opposed to Works is not the act but the object of Faith to wit the Righteousness of Christ which we apprehend and enjoy by Faith for if by Faith he had meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing there were no opposition at all between Faith and Works and the establishing of Justification by Faith will in no wise destroy Justification by Works and consequently to use Mr. Woodbridges Expressions there would be nothing but falshoods and equivocations in all the Apostles Disputations against Justification by Works How easily might the Jews and the Apostle I will adde the Papists and Protestants be reconciled They say we must be justified by Works and these say we must be justified by Faith which is a work of ours and such as includes all other works of new Obedience an easie distinction will salve the matter We are not justified by Works as they are conditions of the first Covenant but we are justified by Works as they are conditions of the second Covenant We are not justified by Works as they are our Legal Righteousness but we are justified by Works as they are our Evangelical Righteousness Was it beseeming the gravity of so great an Apostle to raise so sharp a contest about a trifle as the denomination of Works from the first and second Covenant when as the Works are the very same in respect both of the matter and subject Would not all men have censured his Writings to be but strifes of words § 6. His fift Objection is raised from 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where sayes he there is an evident opposition between the time past and present in respect of their Justification And thence he argues Now you are justified Ergo not before or beforâ— you were unjustified To which I answer 1 That the words do not countenance this inference He sayes indeed that in times past they were unsanctified they had been Fornicators Idolaters c. i. e. As vile and wicked as the worst of men for which sins they deserved to be shut out of the Kingdom of God no less then they that are damned He doth not say that they were unjustified before Conversion they were reclaimed or cleansed from those sins by the Preaching of the Gospel but they were justified from those sins in or by the name i. e. The Merit and Righteousness of Jesus Christ which was imputed to them by God whilest they lived in unbelief But 2 if any man will strain this consequence from the words You are justified Ergo You were not whilest you lived in these sins I shall then own the answer which he rejects with so much scorn and contempt That they were not justified before Conversion either in foro Conscientiae or in foro Ecclesiastico not doubting but that I shall sufficiently clear it from his Exceptions § 7. The first of which is Why might they not be said to be exception 1 sanctified before Conversion as well as justified I answer that there is not the same reason for a mans Sanctification before Faith and Conversion as there is for his Justification For 1 to say That an unconverted person is sanctified is contradictio in adjecto but it is no contradiction to 〈◊〉 That an ungodly or unconverted person is justified which is the expression of the Holy Ghost Rom. 4.5 Sanctification consists in our Conversion or turning unto God but our Justification in Gods accounting unto us the Righteousness and satisfaction of his Son the one is a work or act of God done without us 2 Cor. 5.19 but the other is the operation of God within us God cannot sanctifie us without holiness because he cannot do contradictions but God may justifie us if he please without Faith and Inherent holiness because that ex natura rei is no contradiction Our Sanctification flows from Faith as the principle and motive of it 1 John 3.3 4.19 Gal. 5.6 But now our Justification hath not that dependence upon Faith seeing that is Gods act and not ours though we are said to be sanctified by Faith yet not in that sense that we are said to be justified by Faith Faith is Active in the one but Passive in the other it is onely the Hand or Instrument that receives our Justification it is the principle or efficient which operates and produceth our Sanctification 2 Though Justification be sometimes taken for the declared sentence of Absolution in the Court of Conscience yet it follows not that Sanctification should be so understood because the sentence of Justification is terminated in Conscience But Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes. 5.23 Sanctification is not our knowing that we are sanctified but the conformity of our faculties and their operations to the rule of holiness So that his Assertion that Nothing can be alledged for Justification before believing which will not hold as strongly for Sanctification before believing hath nothing but confidence to support it exception 2 § 8. His next Exception is That the Justification they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdom of God which right and title they had not before they believed c. For if they had this right before they believed then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their Salvation and they might have gone to Heaven though they had lived and died without Faith To which I answer 1. That these Elect Corinthians had no more right to Salvation after their believing then they had before For their right to Salvation was grounded onely upon the purpose of God and the purchase of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a 〈◊〉 freely bestowed upon us and not a debt or
We may remember when it was not so I wish that all Orthodox Christians and especially our University Worthies who have more leisure and far greater helps for such Polemical Exercises then their Brethren abroad had more Zeal to improve this Liberty for the advantage of the Truth The Authors of most of those Errors and Blasphemies which have been lately started are but little more to be faulted then they that do profess the Truth I mean such as are indued with Gifts and Abilities who suffer them to walk abroad without check and controle seeing there is no Error whatsoever but the Scripture affords us variety of Weapons to wound and slay it We cast the blame upon Magistrates because they do suffer them nor can I excuse their connivence at any of those Evils which are contrary to the Light of Nature yet I fear the greatest share of this guilt will lie at our doors who are the Ministers of the Gospel whose office without controversie it is To contend for the Faith to convince gain-sayers and by sound Doctrine to stop their mouths who teach things which they ought not It is but a slender discharge of our Duty to cry out against Errors and Heresies and never shew and convince men what Truth and Error is such loose and general Invectives do never advantage most times they wound the sides of Truth whereas if the Trumpet gave a more certain sound and Ministers did prove those things to be Errors which they brand with this name their pains would much more succeed to the profit of their Hearers they would be better armed against such dangers Your late Resolves to emit a Declaration For giving fitting Liberty to all that fear God within this Commonwealth for the better preservation of the mutual Peace of such as fear God among themselves without imposing one upon the other and to discountenance Blasphemies damnable Heresies and Licentious Practises in Answer to the Petitions of the Congregated Churches in the Northern Counties I am perswaded have exceedingly rejoyced the hearts of all the Faithful throughout the Land Now I humbly offer it to your considerations whether it be not a necessary expedient to preserve the mutual peace of Christians straitly to prohibite under fitting penalties the giving names of obloquy or railing accusations such as the Archangel durst not bring against the Devil and the imposing of slanders upon one another I see not how any manner of good can be expected from this Practise me thinks mens Arguments might be as keen and nervous though their Language be sober beseeming Christians and civil Men. Such names they do not convince most times they harden those that are mis-led But then the mischeifs that come by it are not a few I know nothing that doth imbitter the spirits and alienate the hearts of Christians from each other so much as this and which is worse the Truths and Ways of God are not seldom nor a little clouded by this means For usually the names of the vilest Errors and Heresies are made the Badge and Livery of the choisest Truths The Discourse before you doth instance in one the title of ANTINOMIAN which was originally the character of loose and licentious Libertines i◠by some of our new Doctors appropriated to them who have most faithfully managed the Protestant Cause against the Papists and in the cheif Points which are depending between them to wit Our Justification by Christ alone without Works and Conditions performed by our selves and our full and perfect Deliverance from the Curse of the Law Though there is no true Christian but will rejoyce to suffer shame for the sake of Christ yet by these arts the Ignorant and Simple have their ears stopt and eyes shut against the Word of Life for few have so much courage as to look into that which is generally branded with an evil name So that in a short time a few nick-names shall do us more hurt then Fire and Faggot did heretofore The Lord therefore keep these purposes in your hearts till you have fulfilled them and inable you to perfect the Work which you are called to that the Truth may spred and Godliness flourish that Righteousness may be equally administred and Wickedness especially in High Places severely punished that Learning whereof there is so great use both in Church and State may be encouraged and Peace if possible be restored unto us For the effecting hereof I doubt not but you have the earnest Prayers of all the Faithful throughout the Land I can assure you of him who is Yours Honors most humble Observer W. Eyre The Fourth day of the Nineth Moneth 1653. TO My Deare Flock in the City of NEVV-SARUM unto which God and their own Choise have made me an Over-seer Loving and Beloved Brethren IT was a frequent saying in the mouth of Luther That after his death the Doctrine of Justification would be corrupted A few years last past have contributed more to the fulfilling of his Prediction then all the time that went before Can there be a greater evidence of mens Apostacy from this Article of our Faith then their branding of the Doctrine it self with a mark of Heresie Though our Adversaries are grown more subtle to distinguish yet they are as wide from the true Doctrine of Justification by Christ alone as the perverters of the Faith in Luthers daies It is not easie to number up all the wiles and methods wherewith Satan hath assaulted this Foundation-Truth he knew it was too grosse to tell men That they must be justified by Works seeing the Scriptures are so expresse against it And therefore mens wits must be set on work to find out some plausible distinctions and extenuations a little to qualifie and and sweeten this Popish leaven to take off the odium of the phrase and to rebate the edge of those Scriptures which usually are brought against it It is true say they we are not Justified by Works of Nature but we are Justified by Works of Grace and though we are not Justified by Legal or old Covenant Works yet wee are Justified by Evangelical or New Covenant Works performed by our selves And againe works though they are not Physicall Causes which no man ever affirmed yet they are morall Causes or Conditions of our Justification though they do not mer◠in a strict sense by their innate worth and dignity yet in a large sense and by vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant they may be said to merit our Justification and Salvation Or if these will not doe it the matter is dispatched if Faith may be but taken in a proper sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere fetches in all other works within its circumference But that delusion which is least apt to bee suspected by wel-meaning Christians is the calling Works or Inherent Holinesse by the name of Christ the successe of this bait we have seen of late in too many who have dallied so long with the notion of a Christ
Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
Aphorisms who denies That Christs obedience is the material the imputation of his Righteousness the formal cause of our Justification or that Faith is the Instrument by which we do receive it he plainly ascribes the same kinde of causality unto Christ and Faith making them to differ onely secundum magis minus that Christ is the sine qua non principalis and Faith the sine qua non minus principalis he might have listed sin in the same rank which too is a sine qua non of our Justification That Faith and works in a larger sence are meritorious causes of Life and Blessedness Now we say with Mr. Cr. 1 That God is the efficient cause or the onely Justifier that he hath no motive or inducement but his own Grace and Love to will not to punish us and to give to us his Son thorow whom we have Redemption◠and Deliverance from the curse of the Law We say too 2 that Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification taking Justification pro re volita for a transient effect of the Will of God that Jesus Christ hath by his death and satisfaction fully procured and merited our Discharge and Absolution from the penalty of the Law which we deserved by sin For which cause he is said to have purged our sins by himself i. e. Without the help and assistance of other means Heb. 1.3 There are many who ore tenùs in word do acknowledge That Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification that in deed do deny it The Papists in the Councel of Trent say That God is the efficient the glory of God the final the death of Christ the meritorious cause of our Justification But yet we know that they allow not this effect unto it unless other things do concur on our parts they say That Faith Charity c. do Impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Obtain and after a sort merit forgiveness though not by their own worth and dignity yet by vertue of Gods Covenant and Promise Too many of our Protestants setting aside the word merit which yet Mr. B. thinks may be admitted do tread directly in their steps they ascribe as much unto works as Papists do It is a poor requital unto Jesus Christ to call him the Meritorious cause of our Justification and in the mean while to deny the merit of his death as to the immediate purchases thereof and to ascribe at least a partial meritoriousness to other things 3 I shall go further with Mr. Cr. I freely grant him which I believe Mr. W. will stick at That Faith is the Instrument by which we receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ unto our selves whereby the gratious sentence of God acquitting us from our sins is conveyed and terminated in our Consciences We say indeed That Faith doth not concur to our Justification as a proper Physical Instrument which is a less principal Efficient cause Mr. Rutherford saith well That Faith is not the Organical or Instrumental cause either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation thereof on our behalf By believing we do not cause either our Saviour to satisfie for our sins or God to accept of his satisfaction Every true Believer is perswaded That God hath laid aside his wrath and displeasure towards him for his sins having received a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for them in the death of his Son Sed hoc fides non facit saith he sed objectum jam factum praesupponit Faith is a Receptive not an Effective Instrument an Instrument not to procure but to receive Justification and Salvation which is freely given us in Jesus Christ. It is called an Instrumental cause of our Justification taking Justification passively not actively or in reference to that passive Application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ to himself but not to that active Application whereby God applyeth it to a man which is onely in the minde of God Therefore Calvin calls Faith Opus passivum a passive work § 4. Mr. Cr. proceeds This Doctrine saith he hath in all ages been opposed and obscured sometimes by open Enemies sometimes by professed Friends and such as would be accounted the great Pleaders for Free-grace It is most true That this Article of Free Justification hath and will be a Bone of Contention to the worlds end It is the cheif cause of all those contests and quarrels which have arisen between the Children of the Free-woman and the Children of the Bond-woman Mr. Fox hath well observed It is so strange to carnal Reason so dark to the World it hath so many enemies that except the Spirit of God from above do reveal it Learning cannot reach it Wisdom is offended Nature is astonished Devils do not know it Men do persecute it Satan labors for nothing more then that he may either quite bereave men of the knowledge of this truth or else corrupt the simplicity of it It is not unknown what batteries were raised against it in the very infancy of the Church how the Wits and Passions of men conspired to hinder it what monstrous consequences were charged upon the Doctrine and what odious practises were fathered upon them that did profess it never was any truth opposed with so much malice and bitterness as this hath been and by them especially that were most devout and zealous But when it could not be withstood and stifled Satan endeavored then to deprave and adulterate it by mixing of the Law with the Gospel our own Righteousness with Christs which corruption the Apostle hath strenuously opposed in all his Epistles and more especially in that to the Romans and Galatians where he excludes all and singular works of ours from sharing in the matter of our Justification For the eluding of whose Authority carnal Reason hath found out sundry shifts and distinctions As that the Apostle excludes onely works of Nature but not of Grace Legal but not Evangelical works and that our works though they are not Physical yet they may come in as Moral causes of our Justification It is certain That the most dangerous attempts against this Doctrine have been within the Church and by such as Mr. Cr. calls Professed Friends who have done so much the more mischief in regard they were least apt to be suspected Justification by works was generally exploded amongst us whilest it appeared under the names of Popery and Arminianism which since hath found an easie admittance being vented by some of better note such as would be accounted Pleaders for Free-grace § 5. Mr. Woodbridges Discourse saith Mr. Cr. deals not with the Errors of Papists Socinians Arminians but with Antinomian Error How unjustly our Doctrine is called Antinomian hath been shewn before and Mr. Cr. may be pleased to take notice That Mr. Rutherford accounts the Opinion we oppose the very cheif of the Arminians Socinians and Papists Errors about Justification to wit That
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
or adulti yet to all the Elect to whom the effects of the Covenant and Seals do onely really belong it is real and absolute It is no other then the Sentence of God himself declaring his non-imputation of sin unto them and their deliverance from death by Jesus Christ § 12. 2. Internally in foro Conscientiae at their effectual Vocation when the Lord by the Preaching of the Gospel doth powerfully perswade their hearts to believe in Christ for the Elect themselves before Faith have no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings and purchases in their behalf In which respect they are said to be without Christ and without God in the world Eph. 2.12 and Gal. 4.1 They are compared to an Heir under age who differs nothing from a Servant though he be the Lord of all By Faith we come to see that everlasting love wherewith we were loved and that plenteous Redemption which Christ hath wrought for us for which cause Faith is called The evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 And God is said thereby to reveal his Righteousness from Heaven to us Rom. 1.17 And to reveal his Son in us Gal. 1.16 Now in this sence men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the medium or Instrument whereby the Sentence of Forgiveness is terminated in their Consciences which is daily made more plain and legible by the operation of the Spirit sealing and witnessing unto them their peace and reconciliation with God Whereas unbelievers look on God as their enemy and consequently all their life time are held in bondage through the fear of wrath A true Believer hath peace liberty and boldness towards God he looks upon all the Promises as his own inheritance interprets the Providences of God even those which Reason would construe in another sence to be Fruits of Love and not of Wrath. § 12. Now because this Declarative Sentence by Faith is like the name written in the White Stone Revel 2.17 Which no man knoweth saving he that hath it Many whom the Lord doth justifie are accounted by the world to be but Hypocrites others again are justified of men who are not justified in the sight of God the Lord therefore hath another way of justifying his people to wit In foro mundi when he shall publickly and in the hearing of the whole world pronounce that gracious sentence Come ye blessed of my Father c. Matth. 25.34 Whereunto some have referred those words of the Apostle Acts 3.19 Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. But who so pleaseth to consult with Erasmus Beza and Ludovicus de Dieu upon the place shall finde there is a great mistake in our English Translators and that no such thing was intended there by the Holy Ghost I grant that the sins of the Elect may be said to be then blotted out not that the remission of their sins shall be put off or is not compleat till the last day and till they have performed all the conditions required of them but because this gracious sentence shall be then publickly declared and shall bring forth its Eternal Effect of Life and Glory And in this sence I conceive those Scriptures may be understood which speak of our Justification as a future thing as Rom. 3.30 2.13 c. § 13. Now though we have ascribed Justification unto several times or periods yet do we not make many Justifications Declared Justification whether it be in foro Ecclesiae in foro Conscientiae or in foro mundi is not another from that in the minde of God but the same variously revealed as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper a pardon in the heart of a Prince and inrolled is one and the same this manifested and the other secret and though there are never so many Copies written forth in several hands they do not make many Acquittances or many Pardons being but the Transcripts of one Original So though God doth at sundry times and in divers manners declare his well-pleasedness towards his people yet is their Justification but one and the same which is perfect and compleat at once being his fixed and immutable will not to deal with them according to their sins but as Just and Righteous Persons By that which hath been said it doth appear in what sence we assert The Justification of Gods Elect before they believe Now what little weight there is in those Objections which are commonly brought against this Assertion will be more manifest when we have examined Mr. Woodbridges Treatise Whos 's first quarrel against us is for that as he conceives we give too little unto Faith P. 2. But as it is no disparagement to the Blood of Christ that it doth not move and incline God to love us or to will not to punish us so it is no disparagement to Faith to say That it doth not concur with the Blood of Christ in obtaining our Justification but that by apprehending the Gospel it reveals and evidenceth to us that Justification which we have in Christ the proof whereof is the task of the next Chapter wherein I doubt not but I shall be able through the help of God to put by all those wretched consequences which Mr. W. hath endeavored to father upon this Position That Faith serves to evidence to us our Justification CHAP. VIII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exceptions against our saying That Faith or the act of believing doth justifie no otherwise then as it reveals and evidenceth our Justification are Answered THe first Charge which he brings against this Gloss as he calls it is That it is guilty of a contradiction to the Holy Ghost It is well known sayes he that the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians sets himself on purpose to assert the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in opposition to Works The Question between him and the Jews was not Whether we are declared to be justified by Faith or Works but whether we are justified by Faith or Works in the sight of God or before God And he concludes That it is by Faith and not by Works c. Though all this be granted yet it proves no contradiction to the Holy Ghost in our Assertion We acknowledge that the Question between the Apostle and the Jews was not about the declaring of our Justification nor about the time when we are justified no nor about the condition upon which we are justified but concerning the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness whereby we are justified or by which we are accounted righteous Now the result of his dispute is That we are justified by Faith and not by Works but then the Question will be How Faith is to be taken whether sensu proprio or metonymico whether we are to understand it
Justification 3 From other parallel phrases in holy Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera All which doe signifie That Christ and his sufferings are the true proper and meritorious cause of these benefits and so it must bee understood when wee are said to be Justified by Faith and not that Faith is but a sine qua non or meer cypher in our Justification Faith objectively taken is a proper meritorious cause of our Justification § 4. 4 I shall make use of my adversaries weapon of that very medium which Mr. W. last alledged page 8. That interpretation of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in the formall act of our Justification is not true because our Justification in respect of efficiency is wholly attributed unto them Rom. 8.33.4.6.8.3 24. The internal moving cause was his owne grace and the onely externall procuring cause is the death of Christ there is no other efficient cause besides these We can be no more said to justifie our selves then that we created our selves But to make Faith a condition morally disposing us to Justification maks us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification 1. We should not be justified freely by his grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition as Mr. Walker observes well whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give and then as he infers Justification should not be of grace but of debt contrary to the Apostle in Rom. 3. and 4. 2. If Faith were a condition morally disposing us for Justification we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification for the merits of Christ are not a physical but a moral cause which obtain their effect by vertue of that Covenant which was made between him and the Father now by ascribing unto Faith a morall causall influx in our Justification we doe clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ which I hope Mr. W. will better consider of before he engageth too far in Mr. Baxters cause § 5. That interpretation of this phrase which makes Works going before Justification not onely not sinful but acceptable to God and preparatory to the grace of Justification without controversie is not according to the minde of the holy Ghost For as much as the Scripture frequently declares that no mans Works are acceptable to God before his person is accepted and justified the Tree must be good or else the fruit cannot be good Luke 6.43 44. Mat. 12.33 Joh. 15.5 That of Aug. is sufficiently known Opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum the old orthodox doctrine taught in these Churches here in England was that works before Justification are not pleasing unto God neither doe they make men meet i◠do not qualifie or morally dispose them to receive grace and we doubt not but they have the nature of sin I could muster up a legion of orthodox Writers to defend this Tenent that no qualification or act of ours before Justification doth prepare or dispose us for Justification Nay the Councel of Trent confesseth that none of those things which precede Justification whether it be Faith or other Works doe obtain the grace of Justification But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a Work or Works before Justification which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace viz. the grace of Justification which is most properly called Grace § 6. That interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involves a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction Ergo The proposition is undeniable and the Assumption is to me as cleare To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect A condition though in the Logical notion of it it hath not the least efficiency and therefore Aristotle never reckoned this sine qua non in the number of causes yet in the use of the Jurists as we are now speaking of it it is a morall efficient cause which is effective of that which is promised upon condition Chamier hath well observed That omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva he that performes the least condition imaginable for having of any benefit is active and passive in obtaining of it We will look after no other instance then that which Mr. W. hath set before us An offender against our Lawes that is saved by his Clergy or by reading his Neck-verse he is not passive but active in saving of his life he may properly be said to have saved himselfe his reading being not onely a physicall act but a morall efficient cause which makes that favourable law to take effect To say he is passive because he made not the Law nor sits as Judge on the Bench to absolve himselfe is but a shift to blinde the eyes of the simple seeing that when more causes then one concur to an effect the effect may be denominated from the lowest that which doth least is an active efficient cause nay in this case the Malefactor doth more in saving of his life then either the Law or Judge for though pro forma he acknowledgeth the grace of the State and the courtesie of the Judge unto him yet as the Welch-man that was bid to cry God blesse the King and the Judge cryed God blesse her father and mother who taught her to read intimated he was more beholding to his reading then to the courtesie of the Judge for else the Judge would have been severe enough his mercy would have deserved but little thanks I must needs tell my Old Friend Non loquitur ut Clericus We say such a man is Passive in saving his life who is not required to read or perferm any other condition but receives a pardon of meer Grace In like manner he is Passive in his Justification that doth nothing at all towards the procuring of i◠he that performs the least condition in order thereunto is not onely Physically but Morally active in obtaining this priviledge For though he did not make the Law by and according to which he is justified nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution upon himself yet he hath a subordinate or less principal efficiency in producing the effect nay a learned man whom I hope Mr. W. will not think more worthy to be derided then disputed with tells us That he that performs conditions for Justification doth more to his
of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ â—hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many â—hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were â—â—stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Justâ—fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we
to all the consequences of his debts In this sence our Formal Justification is by the gracious sentence of the Gospel terminated upon our Consciences but otherwise intrinsecally and formally the payment of our debt is our real discharge I shall grant him That the death of Christ doth justifie us onely virtually but yet I affirm That the satisfaction in his death being performed and accepted for us doth justifie us formally for the actual payment of a debt is that which formally makes him that was the debtor no debtor And therefore Christ dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonima's in Scripture phrase Rom. 5.8 9 10. Object But against this some have alledged that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 where he saith That Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the Righteousness of God in him Whence they would infer That the laying of our sins on Christ is onely an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Whereunto we Answer 1 That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause As when it is said That light is let in that darkness might be expelled where the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darkness 2 Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us do differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God which was when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them before the word of Reconciliation was given and therefore before they believed Vers. 19. 3 Though the imputation of our sin to Christ and so the non-imputation thereof to us have an antecedency in respect of imputation of Righteousness to us yet it is of nature onely and not of time For though it be objected That we were not then and therefore Righteousness could not be imputed unto us yet it follows not They might as well object Our sins were not then Ergo They could not be imputed unto Christ whereas in this business of Justification God calleth things that are not as though they were But if Mr. W. had shewn what it is that formally justifies us besides the satisfaction made in Christs death somewhat more might have been spoken to it § 7. The close of this Paragraph is such a dirty puddle that I intended to have stept over it in silence seeing it is so hard to touch pitch or pollution and not be defiled with it but yet for their sakes that do not know 〈◊〉 I shall stay the Reader a little whilest I wash off that dirt which he hath thrown upon me and others They are credulous souls I will assure you that will be drawn by such decoyes as these into Schism and Faction to the hardning and discomforting of more hearts in one hour then the Opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands I dare not allow my self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to pay him in his own coyn having perswaded my heart to follow better examples even his who when he was reviled reviled not again 1 Pet. 2.23 And theirs who being reproached returned blessing 1 Cor. 4.12 In these few words there are a heap of slanders packt together both against my self and others and which is more grievous to be born against the truths and ways of God which we adhere to 1. They that do embrace this Doctrine which I have taught are aspersed with credulity and levity I do verily believe there is not one of my charge but is able to say as the Samaritans John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves c. I dare say they are better setled then to be shaken with the sophistry of this Assailant I am sure both they and many more will bear me witness how frequently I do admonish them of taking up matters of Faith upon trust and credit it being Idolatry in a high degree to give the most Spiritual Worship of God viz. Our Faith to a weak and sinful man He that believes a truth upon a Humane account is no better Christian then he that doth believe a lie Let the prudent judge whether they are not more justly obnoxious to this censure of abusing the credulity of simple souls who will not endure that their hearers should bring their Doctrines to the touchstone The tyranny and usurpation of the Popish Priests is far more excusable then the affected domination of some of ours for they believe that their Church is infallible and cannot erre ours confess that they are fallible and may erre and yet expect subscription to their Dictates no less then to the Canon it self It is held a piaculum to question or debate what ever they say 2. It is but an unhandsome character he hath given my Arguments which he calls decoyes The Apostle I take it hath Englished his French Eph. 4.14 The sleight of men who lie in wait to deceive I dare say he knows me better then in cold blood to accuse me of driving on such a devillish trade as wittingly to deceive mens precious souls And therefore I shall call in no other Compurgator then his own Conscience § 8. As for his charge of Schisme and Faction I am not carefull to answer it being the usuall foam of passionate men who when they want Arguments to convince fall to downright railing Schisme sayes a learned man in the common manage of the word is a meer Theologicall Scar-crow wherewith they who uphold a party in Religion seek to fright away others from enquiring into and closing with that which they doe oppose Both this and the other are most frequently in their mouthes who are deepest in the guilt that is imported by them Ahab by his sins brought down Plagues and Judgements upon Israel yet he cals Elijah the troubler of Israel 1 King 18.17 Athalia was the cheifest Traytor and yet she was the first that cryed out Treason 2 King 11.14 Tertullus was the Orator of the tumult yet he inveighs against Paul as a Ring leader of Sedition Act. 24.5 6. the Church of Rome which hath fallen from the purity of the Catholique Faith brands them for Schismaticks who refuse to continue in the same Apostasie Amongst our selves the late Innovators aspersed all those with Faction and Schisme who would not prostitute their Consciences to the Wils of men and to this day ignorant and prophane persons think all them to be Factious and Schismaticks who live more strictly and religiously then themselves I must needs say they are lesse to be blamed seeing Professors and Ministers do give them such an evill example § 9. I confesse though in common use Schisme and
slightingly of Holiness my own practise would condemn my Doctrine For herein I exercise my self to have always a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men § 3. It is needless to give the Reader an account of all the Oppositions which I have met with in the course of my Ministery nor are they worth the mentioning seeing as the Apostle speaks I have not yet resisted unto blood I shall onely acquaint him with the rise of this present Difference which hapned about three or four years since upon this occasion handling those words How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation Heb. 2.3 in the weekly Lecture which I Preach in this City I proposed this Question Why the Gospel and not the Law is called Salvation seeing Life and Salvation is the end of both One Reason which I gave in Answer thereunto was Because the Law promiseth men life but conditionally upon condition of their Perfect Obedience which condition no man is able to perform and consequently no man can attain unto Life and Happiness by means thereof but the Gospel reveals a Salvation which is freely given unto Sinners which God bestows upon such as have neither money to buy nor worth to deserve it This led me to speak more largely of the Difference between the Law and the Gospel the First Covenant which is a Covenant of Works and the Second which is a Covenant of Free-grace Concerning the latter I laid down this Thesis That in the New Covenant there is no condition required on our parts to intitle us to the blessings of it One Corollary which I drew from hence was That Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant I cannot without too much tediousness rehearse my Explications of this Proposition and I do the rather forbear it now because in the process of this Discouse I shall have more opportunity to rescue my sense of them from some common mistakes I shall onely inform the Reader of one Reason which I then gave for proof of the last Position to wit That Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant and particularly of our Justification which as Mr. W. calls it is the Special and Noble-blessing of the New Covenant in regard that our Controversie concerning Justification before Faith grew first from thence The Argument was to this effect If Faith be the condition of our Justification it must follow That men are Believers before they are justified for the condition must be performed before the benefit which is promised thereupon can be received But men are not Believers before they are justified the Scripture witnesseth that the Subject of Justification is a sinner or ungodly person Rom. 4.5 5.8 10. Now the Holy Ghost never calls Believers ungodly or wicked but Saints Faithful Holy Brethren Children of God Members of Christ c. § 4. The next news that I heard was That all the Pulpits in the Town were filled with invectives against my Sermon I must confess it surprised me with no little wonder knowing that I had delivered nothing but what was consonant to the Scriptures and wherein I was sure I had the suffrages of many godly and learned men and those too that are reputed amongst the more manly sort of our Protestant Divines But that which I mused at most was the usage of a Neighbor Minister who though he heard not my Sermon and although by reason of a like mistake he had solemnly promised me not to clash against my Doctrine until he had first conferred with me about it yet shortly after without giving me the least hint of his dis-satsfaction he publickly complained to the people what dangerouis Errors had been lately vented amongst them suborned the words of the Apostle Gal. 1.8 to pronounce me cursed and charged the people not to hear them that do teach 1 That the New Covenant is not conditional 2 That Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant or 3 That Justification goes before Faith To let pass those odious Nick-names which my Neighbors and others who have been invited hither to disaffect the people towards my Doctrine have frequently bestowed upon me as Antinomian New-Declarative Troubler of Israel c. which troubled me the less when I remembred what Luther sayes He that will Preach Christ truly and confess him to be our Righteousness must be content to hear that he is a pernitious fellow and that he troublâ—th all things c. And a little before The faithful must bear this name and title in the World that they are Seditious and Schismaticks and the Authors of innumerable Evils c. And in another place viz. on Gal. 5.11 Paul saith he taketh it for a most certain sign that it is not the Gospel if it be preached in peace But that which grieved me most was That Satan had gotten such an advantage against my Ministry for those insinuations prevailed so far upon the people that many of my wonted hearers fell off and reâ—â—ained from coming to my Lecture for fear least I should perswade them to believe some other Gospel then that which is revealed in the Scriptures And how to remove this offence so unjustly taken I could not devise for though I made things never so plain in Publick thither they would not come or if I had gone to them in Private it had been but to little purpose they being possessed as one of them most uncharitably told me that I had a design to vent new Doctrine in Publick and to blanch it over with a fair construction in private It came into my minde as the most likely expedient to vindicate both the truth and my self to desire those Reverend Ministers who sometimes came unto my Lecture That if they were dis-satisfied with what I had delivered they would be pleased publickly to declare it assoon as Sermon was ended and show me wherein I had swerved from the truth I hoped that by this means we should have a clearer understanding of one another and the people would be the better satisfied when they had compared their Exceptions and my Answers together But hitherto I could never obtain this favor from them though some of them have taken the Liberty to clamor lustily against me behinde my back and when I was safe enough from giving them an Answer § 5. About April last which was Anno 1652. I came unto the Wednesdays Lecture in this City where I heard a stranger whom I knew not let fall sundry Passages which I conceived to be very wide from the Orthodox Faith as well as contrary to the Doctrine which I had lately delivered in the same place It sounded harshly in mine ears That the Elect themselves to whom Christ was peculiarly given by the Father before the foundations of the world for whom Christ gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor whose sins he bare in his Body on the Tree even to a full propitiation had no right or interest
in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given
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
another time he would have taken my word for a greater matter I desired Mr. C. an Assembly man who sat next unto him to declare whether it were not so but he refused to speak though I urged him twice Had he remembred the words of our Saviour John 8.37 I dare say he would not have refused to perform so just an office At length a Gentleman that stood by one of the Parish Elders ingenuously acknowledged That I had truly alledged it Then Mr. W. denied their authority saying It was a Humane testimony I accepted his Answer and desired the people to remember what Mr. W. had told them knowing that many present would receive it sooner from him then they would from me That the Authority of the Assembly is but Humane and not Divine and Infallible and consequently That their Votes and Determinations are of no greater force then the Proofs and Reasons which do confirm them And therefore I immediately offered him Divine Authority in the Argument following If they with whom God did make the New Covenant when it was first revealed and exhibited were in that federal Act or Relation the types and figures of Jesus Christ then the New Covenant was made onely with Christ. For that which is attributed to a person as a type or figure belongs properly and peculiarly to the Antitype But all they with whom the New Covenant was made when it was first exhibited were in that federal Relation the types of Christ Ergo. The Minor was proved thus The New Covenant was made with Abraham but Abraham in his federal Relation or in receiving that Covenant was a type of Christ Ergo. Whereunto if it had been needful I had added divers other Instances as of Noah Phinehas David c. who in the respective Covenants which God made with them were also types and figures of Jesus Christ. The Covenant made with Noah Gen. 9.9 was as our Divines have observed the Covenant of Grace and that Scripture it self doth make it manifest Isai. 54.8 9. Now Noah in receiving the Covenant was a type of Christ for it followed immediately upon the offering up of his Sacrifice Chap. 8. v. 20 21. which clearly signified That all the effects of Gods Covenant are procured for us by that Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor which Christ hath offered Eph. 5.2 So Phinehas his Covenant concerning the everlasting Priesthood Num. 25.12.13 was the very same which was confirmed by oath unto Christ Psal. 110.4 it was made with Phinehas as a Typical Mediator because he stood in the gap to turn away Gods wrath Verse 11. In like manner the Covenant made with David was the Covenant of Grace 2 Sam. 23.6 And therefore it is called The sure mercies of David Isai. 55.3 Now that David in receiving that Covenant was a type of Christ is evident from Acts 13.34 Psalm 89. verses 3 4 19 20 24 28 34 c. But I must return to Mr. W. who denied the Major viz. That the Covenant made with Abraham was the New Covenant which I proved in this wise If the whole New Covenant be comprised in this one promisâ— I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed then the New Covenant was made with Abraham But the whole New Covenant is comprised in this promise I will be thy God c. Ergo. He answered I deny all I replied to him That the Sequel is evident forasmuch as this promise is the sum of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. And the Assumption is acknowledged by all Divines that ever I met with nay the Apostle himself calls it the Gospel Gal. 3.8 If my memory fail not he affirmed That the Covenant made with Abraham was onely concerning temporal blessings as the Land of Canaan c. whereof Circumcision was a Seal I well remember That upon his often affirming that the New Covenant made with us is this Conditional promise If thou believest thou shalt be saved I offered him this Argument to evict the contrary If we are in Covenant or do partake of some benefits of the Covenant before we do believe then that conditional promise is not the New Covenant but we do partake of the same benefits of Covenant before wee doe believe Ergo. The reason of the Sequel is because the condâ—tion must be performed before the benefit which is promised upon condition can be received The Minor was proved by a medium which Mr. Rutherford makes use of for the same purpose The Spirit which works Faith is given us before we do believe but the Spirit which works Faith is a blessing of the New Covenant and given us by vertue of the Covenant Ergo We do partake of some blessings or benefits of the New Covenant before we believe He denied That the Spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the New Covenant which I proved from the Tenor of the New Covenant mentioned Heb. 8.10 I will put my Laws in their minde c. and they shall all know me He denied That this was a promise of the Spirit which works Faith but rather of the Spirit of Adoption which follows Faith That it is a promise of the Spirit which works Faith was proved from John 6.45 where our Saviour having shewn that none do believe but by a Divine and Supernatural power No man can come to me except the Father draw him he addes It is written in the Prophets they shall be all taught of God i. e. God will give his Spirit unto all that are ordained to life which shall enable them to believe The places in the Prophets where this is written or promised are Isa. 54.13 and Jere. 31.34 which is cited by the Apostle Heb. 8. Then he denied That this was the New Covenant made with us whereunto I replied The New Covenant which is made with Spiritual Israel is the Covenant made with us but this Covenant is made with Spiritual Israel Ergo. His Answer was I deny all Though the Major be as clear as the Sun That all the Elect whether Jews or Gentiles are Spiritual Israel or the Seed of Abraham See the Ninth Tenth and Eleventh Chapters to the Romans and Gal. 3.26 29. And the Assumption is in the Text This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days c. And therefore I rejoyned Contra negantem principia non est disputandum and so our Conference brake off I have here given the Reader a true Narrative of our Discourse concerning this matter wherein I take the Lord to witness I have not wittingly concealed or added a syllable to vary either from his sence or my own § 2. I shall now return to his Printed Discourse and take things in the same order as they lie before us The Argument as he hath formed it runs thus If we are in Covenant before we believe then we are justified before we believe but we are in Covenant before we believe Ergo. Wherein
our Conference If Faith be given us by vertue of the Covenant made with the House of Israel then is it given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for the House of Israel is the whole company of Gods Elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9.6 But Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant made with the House of Israel Jere. 31.31 Heb. 8.19 § 6. Whereunto Mr. W. answers 1 by way of retortion If Mr. E. saith he will urge the words of this Text rigorously they would prove more then he would have I hope there is no hurt in that though the place doth prove more that doth no whit invalidate its force as to the purpose for which we alledged it but what is that which it proves more It is manifest says he that this Covenant contains a promise of sending Christ into the world to die for our sins as the Apostle proves Heb. 10.14.15 16. So that we may as well infer from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the Mediator as that we are in Covenant before we believe and then his death shall serve not to obtain all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Socinians to declare and confirm c. If he please to admit of a Reply we say 1 That he mistakes the inference that was drawn from hence The Proposition to be concluded was not That we are in Covenant before we believe but that Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us which is sufficiently secured by these Texts for if by the House of Israel be meant all the Elect as undoubtedly they are and the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant which is made with the House of Israel then the Spirit and Faith are given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us we being in the number of Gods Elect. 2 It is not so manifest as he pretends that these Texts do contain a promise of sending Christ to die for us The promises here mentioned do express onely what benefits do accrew to us by the Death of Christ I grant that this Covenant supposeth the Death of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring means by which these benefits do flow down unto us and therefore it is said In those days or after those days meaning the days of the Son of Man when the Messiah whom God had promised should be exhibited which in Scripture are called The last days the last times and the world to come c. Though the Apostle mentions the Covenant Heb. 10.15 it is not to prove That God would send his Son to die but that being come as these believing Hebrews acknowledged though they saw not the vertues of his death as to the abolishing of other Sacrifices he hath offered up a perfect Sacrifice Verse 10 12 14. and consequently they needed no other Sacrifice to take away sin for otherwise God had not made such ample promises in reference to the times of the Messiah as you finde he hath Jere. 31. That he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more c. For says the Apostle when there is such a full remission there needs no more offering for sin Verse 18. § 7. 3. Though we should grant him that this Text Jere. 31. contains a promise of sending Christ what were this to the purpose to weaken our inference That Faith is given by vertue of the Covenant made with us May not God in the same Covenant promise both Christ and Faith But sayes Mr. W. it will follow then that this Covenant was made with us or that we were in Covenant with God not onely before we believe but before the death of Christ. I am so far from looking upon it as an absurdity that I shall readily own and acknowledge it as an undeniable truth That the New Covenant was made with all the Elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable Will of God concerning all those good things which in time are bestowed upon them and therefore it is called an Everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 not onely a parte post but a parte ante as it shall have no end nor be changed So it had no beginning God having from all eternity immutably purposed in himself to bestow upon them all those blessings which they do receive in time yet we say there are more especially three moments or periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1 immediately upon the fall of Adam when he first published his gracious promise of saving all his Elect by the womans Seed Gen. 3.15 The first Covenant being broken and dissolved the Lord immediately published that other Covenant which cannot be broken and hereunto as hath been shewed do those Scriptures relate Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 2 At the death of Christ because thereby all the benefits willed to us by the Everlasting Covenant were merited and procured for us the full price which was paid for them was then exhibited for which cause the New Covenant is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament which was confirmed by the death of the Testator Jesus Christ Heb. 9.17 And the Blood which he shed the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant Heb. 13.20 and the Blood of the New Testament Matth. 26.28 So that his charge of Socinianism doth not touch us for though we do not say That Christ procured the Covenant or that God should will to us â—hose mercies which are therein promised yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the Blood of Christ as our deliverance from the curse inherent holiness c. 3 The Covenant is said to be made with men when God doth confer upon men the benefits which are therein promised or at least makes them to know and understand their interest and propriety therein Thus is that to be understood Isai. 55.3 I will make an Everlasting Covenant i. e. I will fulfil my Everlasting Covenant or bestow upon you all those mercies which I have promised and which my Son hath purchased by shedding of his Blood And thus we grant That God makes his Covenant with his people when he gives them Faith when he enables them to lay hold of it and to plead it at the Throne of Grace now though in this sence God may be said to take men into Covenant when they doe beleeve yet will it not follow that the Spirit and Faith are not given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us so that his retortion is pittifully unsuccessefull it gives not the least wound to the cause which we maintain § 8. The second branch of his Answer is That upon a most serious perusall of these Texts I finde them so contradictory to Mr. Eyres purpose
things whatsoever which we stand in need of and are good for us Now I say that Promise or Covenant by vertue whereof we obtain both Grace and Glory good things present and future is not conditional to us I say to us for to Christ it was conditional though to us it be free to him it was a Covenant of Works though to us it be a Covenant of pure Grace there is not so much as one blessing doth descend to us but he hath dearly bought it even with the price of his own blood for which cause he is called the Mediator Witness and Surety of the New Covenant § 2. 2. When we say the New Covenant is not conditional we understand a condition in its proper and genuine sense as the Jurists use it in reference to mens contracts and bargains A condition saith Dr. Cawel is a rate manner or Law annexed to mens acts or grants staying and suspending the same and making them uncertain whether they shall take effect or no. And our English Papinian Conditio dicitur cum quid in casum incertum qui potest tendere ad esse aut non esse confertur To the same purpose the Expositor of Law terms A condition is a restraint or bridle annexed and joyned to a promise by the performance of which it is ratified and takes effect and by the non-performance of it it becomes voide the person to whom it is made shall receive no commodity or advantage by it Hence is that Maxime amongst Lawyers Conditio ad impleri debet priusquà m sequatur effectus i. e. The condition must be performed bâ—fore the Grant or Promise becomes valid In this sense we say The Covenant which God made with Adam was conditional God annexed to the promise of Life the condition of Obedience Do this and thou shalt live The stability and success of that promise did depend upon his performing of the condition he failing in his part the promise became voide Now we deny that the blessings of the New Covenant do depend upon this or any other condition to be performed by us Lawyers do distinguish of a twofold condition 1 Antecedent and 2 Consequent The Antecedent condition being performed doth get or gain the thing or estate made upon condition the Consequent condition doth keep and continue it As for instance If I fell a man a Farm on condition he shall pay me five hundred pounds present and forty shillings nay be it but six pence per annum for the future the payment of the five hundred pounds is the Antecedent condition which gives him possession of the Farm the forty shillings or six pence per annum is the Subsequent condition and that continues his possession and if he fail in this latter the Estate is forfeited and in Law I may re-enter upon the Farm as if no such bargain had been made between us Now we say further That the Blessings of the New Covenant require not onely no Antecedent but no Subsequent condition to be performed by us there is nothing on our parts that procures our Right and Interest nor yet that continues and maintains our interest in them The Lord Jesus is both the Author and the Finisher of our Salvation it is by and through him that we are made Sons and doe continue Sons are made Righteous and doe continue Righteous that we Obtain and do Injoy all the effects of the New Covenant § 3. I am not ignorant that the word Condition is sometimes taken improperly for that which is meerly an Antecedent though it contributes not the least efficiency either natural or morall towards the production of that which follows it A condition properly taken is a moral efficient cause which produceth its effect by vertue of some compact agreement or constitution between persons omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva a condition properly so called is effective of that which is promised upon condition Now I say not onely conditions in a proper sense but all certaine and constant Antecedents though they are not expressed or included in their Federal constitution so as that the Promise doth depend upon them may in a vulgar sense be called conditions of those things that follow them and in this sense our Divines doe commonly call one benefit of the Covenant a condition of the another as that which is given first of that which is given after Thus Dr. Twisse makes inherent holinesse to be causa dispositiva or the sine qua non not of Justification but of Salvation or Glorification because the one alwaies precedes the other Many other do expresse themselves in the same manner It is evident that some benefits of the New Covenant in their execution and accomplishment doe follow others though we have a right unto them all at once for as much as that flowes immediately from the purchase which Christ hath made yet we have not possession of them all at once but in that order and manner as God is pleased to bestow them Christ hath procured both Grace and Glory for his Elect yet he gives Grace i. e. Gracious Quallifications as Knowledge Faith Love c. before he brings them to the possession of Glory in which sense I conceive it is that the Scripture annexeth Salvation unto Faith and other works of inherent Holinesse Matth. 5. pr. Heb. 12.14 c. because these are certain and infallible Antecedents in all that shall be saved none who live to years of understanding are saved but they that doe beleeve the Gospell and shew forth the fruits of it in a suitable conversation If in this sence onely Faith and Repentance be called conditions of the Covenant to wit because they are wrought in all those that do injoy the ful effect of the Covenant I will not contend § 4 Yet I think it fit rather to forbear this expression 1 Because it is so improper to call a part of the Covenant the condition of it Chamier though he often useth the expression yet hee acknowledgeth that Faith is called a condition verbis minus propriis And a little after Fidei conditio non est antecedens sed consequens non est causa salutis sed instrumentum apprehendendi gratiam i. e. Faith is not a proper antecedent condition but an improper or consequent condition it is not a cause of salvation but only the instrument whereby we receive and apply it Mr. Rutherford himselfe though he cals them Libertines and Antinomians who say the Covenant of Grace is not conditionall yet almost in the same breath he hath let fall these words To buy without mony and to have a sight of sin is the condition of our having the water of Life but the truth is it is an improper condition for both wages and worke is Free Grace I confesse improper locutions ought to be borne with when they serve to illustrate truth but this I conceive doth exceedingly darken it 2 Because of the advantage
which the adversaries of the Gospel doe make of this expression were most of the ancient Fathers now alive to see what use the Papists and others doe make of their unwary sayings to patronize their Errors I am perswaded they would fill the world with their retractations and apologies Have we not cause then to be careful in this matter when we see so many profligated Errors as Free-Will and Universall Redemption sheltering themselves under this expression But 3 That which moves me most is compassion to our vulgar hearers who when they hear men say that Faith Repentance c. are conditions of the Covenant understand it no otherwise then in the most common acception and as the term Condition is used in reference to mens Contracts and as Obedience was the condition of the first Covenant whereby as Luther hath observed they live stil in bondage not daring to take hold of the Promise because they doubt whether they have the condition All their endeavors after Faith and Holinesse are but mercinary and selfish they would not do the work but to get the wages § 5. But this is not the matter that is now in question Our difference is not about words but things The Reader I suppose is sufficiently informed in what sence we deny that the New Covenant is conditional to wit in that manner as the first Covenant was which was properly conditional and this perswasion I cannot but adhere to notwithstanding al that I have seen or heard to the contrary That in the New Covenant wherein God hath promised Life and Salvation unto sinners for whom Christ hath shed his blood and by vertue whereof they do obtain all good things present and future there is no condition required of them to obtain or procure the blessings that are therein promised For though God doth bestow upon us one blessing before another yet he gives not any one for the sake of another but all of them even to our finall sitting down in Glory are given us freely for the sake of Christ Glory it selfe is not only not for but not according to our works as the principle or rule by which God proportions his reward but according to his owne Mercy and Grace My Reasons for the Thesis are § 6. 1. Because in all those places wherein the nature or tenor of the New-Covenant is declared there is not as Dr. Twisse hath observed any mention at all of the least condition as Jer. 31.33 Ezek. 36.25 c. Hos. 2.18 19 20. in all which places with the like God promiseth to doe all in them and for them upon the last of those Texts Zanchius observes Non ait si non resipueris recipiam te in gratiam desponsabo sed absolute ego te desponsabo est igitur absolutissima promissio qua sine ulla conditione promittit Deus sâ— sâ—um populum in gratiam recepturum servaturum c. i. e. He doth not say if thou wilt repent I will receive thee into favor and betroth thee but absolutely I will betroth thee c. It is therefore a most absolute Covenant wherein God without any condition doth promise that he will receive his people into favor and save them The same Author in another place speaking of the Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 It is to be noted saith he that this Promise is altogether free absolute and without any condition which he proves by two Arguments one of which is Quoniam nullam plane in verbis foederis conditionem legimus i. e. Because in the words of the Covenant we finde no condition And long before him that noble Champion of Grace against the Pelagians Prosper of Aquitan who lived about the year 445. Manet prorsus quotidie impletur quod Abrahae dominus sine conditione promisit sine lege donavit The Covenant saith he is still in force and is daily fulfilled which the Lord promised unto Abraham without any condition and established without a restipulation Now if any shall say that these and such like Texts do not comprize the whole but onely a part of the New Covenant because God doth not say it is the whole Covenant I Answer 1 That it is a meer shift like that of the Papists against Justification by Faith alone because the word Alone is not found in those Scriptures which the Protestants doe bring to prove it Our Divines answer it is there virtually and by necessary consequence though not formally or litterally So say I when the Lord saith expressely This is my Covenant It is all one as if he had said This is my whole Covenant Let our Adversaries shew us one place where any conditional Promise is called the New Covenant either in whole or in part 2 That which they would make the Condition of the Covenant on our part is expressely promised to us no lesse then any other blessing and their saying that it is promised in the Covenant but not as a part of the Covenant hath been sufficiently disproved before § 7. 2. Because all those Covenants which God made to prefigure this Covenant were free and absolute without any Condition therefore the Covenant it selfe which was figured by them is much more so It is not to be questioned but the substance hath as much Grace as the shadow Now I say in those tipicall Covenants which God made with Noah Abraham Phineas David c. there are no Restipulations The Covenant with Noah doth not run like that with Adam Do this and live but I will not destroy the earth c. Gen. 9.11 I confesse Rivet saith the condition on Noahs part was ut justè intigrè ambularet But 1 God doth not say so the Lord doth not say I will make this Covenant with thee if thou wilt walke uprightly 2 This Covenant was made not onely with Noah but with every living creature Vers. 12. Now sensitive creatures could not performe any such Condition 3 If the benefit of that Covenant had depended upon Noahs upright walking then upon Noahs fall V. 21. the World should have been drowned again as death entred into the world upon the non-performance of Adams condition The Covenant with Phinehas Num. 25. is not like that which God made with Eli which was but a conditional and uncertain Covenant 1 Sam. 2.30 So the Covenant which God made with David concerning the Kingdom is not like the Covenant which he made with Saul which was quickly voide because it depended upon his obedience 1 Sam. 13.13 14. which Davids did not and therefore the Covenant which God made with David is called The sure mercies of David Isa. 54.3 God promised mercies unto Saul as well as unto David but they were not sure mercies because they were conditional they were promised upon conditions to be performed by him but the Covenant with David was sure and stedfast Psal. 89.28 because it depended not upon conditions on his part and therefore
though he started aside as well as Saul yet the Covenant made with him was not thereupon dissolved and broken § 8. 3. Because if there were any condition required in the New Covenant to intitle us to the Blessings of it it would not be a Covenant of pure Grace so that the asserting of conditions in the New Covenant doth by necessary consequence overthrow the nature of it for as Austine hath observed Grace is not grace unless it be every way free and the Apostle before him Rom. 11.6 If by grace then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace Our Salvation is ascribed to Grace not onely inclusively but exclusively Ephes. 2.8 9 Tit. 2.5 All the Blessings of the New Covenant are called Gifts Rom. 5.17 18. 6.23 and gifts that are given freely 1 Cor. 2.12 Rom. 3.24 To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories he that parts with any thing upon conditions doth as it were sell it The works and conditions which men perform in the Prophets phrase are their money Isai. 55.1 2. A condition performed makes the thing covenanted for a due debt which the promiser is bound to give so that if the Blessings of the Covenant did depend upon conditions they would not be of grace but debt and men by performing those conditions would be at least in part their own Saviours Now what can be imagined more derogatory to the Grace of God Object True may some say it would derogate from the grace of God if we attributed such a meritoriousness unto these conditions as the Papists do unto works but we do not do so To which I answer 1 That the Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to Justification and Salvation then what our Adversaries do 2 Neither Papists nor Arminians do ascribe any more meritoriousness to works then our opponents They grant there is such an infinite distance and disproportion between the Blessing promised and the conditions required of us that in strictness of Justice they do not deserve it onely expacto seeing God is pleased to promise so largely upon condition of so small a pittance of service we may be said to merit by performing the condition and in this sence Mr. Baxter will tell you That the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward The Papists never pleaded for merit upon any other account Mr. Calvin observed long ago how much they please themselves with this simple shift supposing that hereby they shall evade whatsoever Arguments are brought against them Though Mr. B. seems to mince the matter calling his conditions but a sine qua non and a Pepper corn c. he attributes as much if not more to works then the Papists Arminians and Socinians have done the Papists will not say That works do merit in a strict and proper sence Smalzius calls their fides formata a meer sine qua non and a known friend to the Remonstrants Doctrine amongst our selves dubs it with no better name then a sleight unconsiderable despicable Pepper corn most pitifully unproportionable to the great rent which God might require and to the infinite treasure of glory he makes over to us And again That mite of Obedience Faith and Love But now Mr. B. goes a step beyond them in that he ascribes a meritoriousness to works which the Arminians and Socinians have not dared to do 3 I would ask whether the condition required of Adam were meritorious of eternal life I presume no man will say it was in a strict and proper sense there being no proportion between the work and the wages but yet that condition did lessen the freeness of Divine Grace The Grace of God was not manifested so much in saving man in that way as in giving life unto him freely And therefore to put our Justification and Salvation upon the same terms must necessarily eclipse the Grace of God in the New Covenant Object But some may say there is a great difference the conditions required of Adam were legal conditions but the conditions which we stand for and assert in the New Covenant are Evangelical Conditions I answer That the sound of words doth nothing at all alter the nature of things all conditions performed for life are legal conditions The precepts both of Law and Gospel have the same matter though not the same end but when Gospel duties are made conditions of Justification and Salvation there is no difference Object Yes may some say Evangelical conditions are more facile and easie then the Legal were Are they so Let them consider again whether it be more easie for a man that is dead in trespasses and sins to believe in Christ to love God to hate sin to mortifie his lusts c. then it was for Adam in his innocency when he had a natural inclination to obey God to abstain from the fruit of one Tree when he had a thousand besides as good as that there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was But if it were so yet would the reward be debt and not grace As he that hath his peny by contract hath as much right to it though he labored but an hour as if he had endured the heat of the whole day We say Gradus non variat speciem it is not more grace but all grace that doth denominate the Covenant a Covenant of Grace § 9. To these Reasons there might be added many more which because they have been mentioned before upon another occasion I shall not stand upon them 4. Because all the pretended conditions of the Covenant are promised in the Covenant Now it is absurd to make any thing a cause of itself or a means and condition whereby it is procured 5. Because the asserting of conditions in the Covenant attributes unto men a power and ability to do good not onely before they are justified but before they believe For if all the promises of the Covenant are conditional then the promise of Faith is conditional and consequently a man must be supposed able to perform some good and acceptable work to God before he believes whereas without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Conditions in a proper sence do necessarily infer the liberty of mans will unto that which is good for as the Remonstrants do define it A condition is a free act which we absolutely may perform or not perform by Freewil not acted by the predeterminating grace of God A Conditional Covenant and Freewil are inseparable the former supposeth the latter Whether Mr. W. will own the Consequence I am not able to say however that there is no such power or ability in the Natural man to do that which is good might be irrefragably demonstrated from sundry Scriptures as Gen. 6.5 Eph. 2.1 2. 1 Cor. 2.14 2 Cor. 3.5 Rom.
as yet hath not looked into the tenth part of either As for the Jewish Doctors I suppose no man will think them competent Judges of Gospel verities and I must confesse that too many of our Christian Writers are leavened over-much with a Jewish legal spirit However if he had pointed to the Authors that make this Observation I should have weighed the grounds whereon they lay it the names of men though never so learned weigh lighter then a feather in matters of Faith If hee took up his Observation upon trust from Grotius as I suspect he did I shall presume once more to advice him to take heed of tampering with the Notions of that learned Apostate § 9. I have shewed already that sundry Godly and Learned men are of another mind who exclude all manner of Conditions from the New Covenant and consequently do make Faith a part of the Covenant and not the means to bring us into Covenant to which there might be added many more as Luther The Promises of the Law are conditionall promising life not freely but to such as fulfill the Law and therefore they leave mens Consciences in doubt for no man fulfilleth the Law But the Promises of the New Testament have no such Condition joyned unto them nor require any thing of us nor depend upon any Condition of our worthinesse but bring and give unto us freely Forgivenesse of sins Grace Righteousnesse and Life everlasting for Christs sake c. Melancton speaks as fully to the purpose Men commonly saies he doe imagine that the Gospell is a conditionall Promise but this conceit is to be rooted out of them The Gospell offers remission of sins and Eternal Life without the Condition of our works And again Our Obedience is neither the Cause nor the Condition for which wee are accepted before God So P. Martyr Wee deny sayes he That the Covenant of God concerning the remission of sinnes hath any Condition annexed unto it And Olevian The whole frame or substance of the New Covenant is without any Condition Estius puts this question How the New Testament can be called a Covenant seeing it contains onely a most free promise whereas Covenants do consist of conditions on both parts We may not answer says he that good works are the condition thereof seeing that works themselves are contained in the promise of the New Testament But says he the word Berith doth not onely signifie a Covenant in a strict sense which consists of mutual conditions but it single promise which is free from all conditions and such a Covenant is that which we call the New Testament viz. Promissio Dei prorsus absoluta gratuita to wit That promise of God which is altogether free and absolute With him agrees Dr. Ames who addes That the New Covenant is more properly called a Testament then a Covenant because a Will or Testament bequeaths Legacies without any office or condition of the Legatees And Beza The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Gal. 3.14 doth not signifie says he any promise but that which is altogether free in which respect it is opposed to the Law for the promises of the Law have conditions annexed to them and therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby the New Covenant is signified is better rendred Promise then Covenant But to avoide proliâ—ity I shall desire the Reader at his leisure to peruse Junius his Second Oration De foedere novo prefixt to his Enarrations on the four first Psalms who being so great a Linguist and Lawyer his Judgement in this point ought the more to be regarded It may be Mr. B. and Mr. W. will place them but in the form of ignorant and unstudied Divines Though they do it hath been sufficiently confirmed with the authority of a greater Doctor And if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater 1 John 5.9 § 10. The Scriptures which Mr. W. hath brought do no whit help him as Heb. 11.16 where it is said God was not ashamed to be called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were believers Ergo says he God is not the God of any before they do believe He might reason as well a Father acknowledgeth and stands by his son when he is in distress Ergo He was not his father before The scope of the place is not to shew when God did become their Father but rather the faithfulness and condescendence of God towards his people in their low estate for though they were pilgrims and strangers in the world hated and despised of all yet God did own and honor them See Psal. 105.12 13 14 15. So that in 1 Pet. 2.10 where the Apostle speaking to the Saints says In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the real participation or interest in the blessings of it Indeed in the first consideration none are the people of God but they that do profess the fear and worship of the true God who walk in the name i. e. In the Laws and Ordinances of God In which respect the Elect before Faith are said to have been without God in the world Eph. 2.12 And in this sense all that do profess the truth are the people of God though many of them are Hypocrites who are therefore said to be of Israel though they are not Israel and some that are but fruitless branches are notwithstanding said to be in Christ which must be understood in respect of external profession and not of internal implantation But in the later consideration none are the people of God but they that do belong to the Election of Grace who are the Spiritual Seed and Israel in truth And thus all the Elect whether called or uncalled are the people of God though before conversion they have not the comfort yet they have a good right and title unto all the purchases of Christs death God knows them to be his people though they know not that he is their God CHAP. XXI Wherein the remaining Arguments which Mr. Woodbridge hath brought to prove That the New Covenant is not an absolute Promise and that the Elect have no right to the Covenant before they believe are answered MR. W. towards the close of his Book hath cast in three or four Arguments more for the confirmation of his Opinion which he thinks superfluous I might saith he spare the pains of further proof And truly I think so too unless he had bestowed his pains in a better cause I must tell him That when he hath said all that he can in defence of this cause he will at last sit down a looser for when the day shall come which shall try every mans work of what sort it is this hay and stubble of mans righteousness and mens pleadings for it shall be consumed to ashes though I am
them in the fittest times Now the Absoluteness of the New Covenant is so far from being any impediment to Faith as that it affords men the greatest encouragement to believe both to cast themselves into the arms of Christ and to put on a strong confidence of inheriting all the promises seeing that in their accomplishment they depend not upon Works and Conditions performed by themselves § 5. Mr. W. demands 1 Whether there be an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace Though there be not yet are the general promises of the Covenant a sufficient ground for our Faith for as much as Grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners which all that are ordained to life shall believe and lay hold of But says Mr. W. is it sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be onely an absolute promise on Gods part c. What contradiction is there unto sense in either of these For 1. what is it to lay hold of the Covenant but as Benhadads Servants did by Ahabs words 1 Kings 20.33 to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve with the woman of Cannan not to be beaten off with any discouragements Which act of Faith is called The taking of the Kingdom of Heaven by violence Matth. 11 12. Which is when a Soule appropriates generall Promises to himselfe in particular And against Hope beleeves in Hope The Apostle calls it Fleeing for refuge to lay hold on the Promise Heb. 6.18 which Promise is the same which God confirmed by an Oath Vers. 17. Now wee doe not finde that God did ever confirme any Conditionall Promise with an Oath but onely those Absolute Promises of his Grace Isai. 54.9 10. Psal. 89 34 35. As for the other phrase of entering into Covenant with God Though wee never find it in the New Testament that the Apostles did exhort men to enter into or to make a Covenant with God yet I conceive that it may bee used in reference to the Externall Administration of the New Covenant Men may bee said to enter into Covenant with God when they take upon them the profession of Christianity and give up themselves to bee the Lords People In this respect wee may exhort men as the Apostle doth To give up themselves a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God and to abide stedfast in the Covenant of God or rather as the Apostles phrase is To hold fast their Profession firme unto the end Hebr. 3.6 It were absurd to exhort men either to make or to concurre to the making of the Covenant of Grace which is his act alone who sheweth mercy unto whom he will § 6. His next Interogative is a very strange one he asks us Whether if the Covenant be an absolute Promise it be sense to accuse blame and damne men for unbeleefe and rejecting of the Gospell Was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute Promise By his favor who did ever say that men are damned for not being objects of an Absolute Promise We say the condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God hath made with Christ or Gods not giving them unto Jesus Christ but this is antecessio ordinis non causalitatis their exclusion from this Covenant is but an Antecedent and not the cause of their destruction Men are damned for not beleeving that Grace which God hath manifested to sinners for not receiving it with that esteem and such affections as it doth deserve so that formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being objects of Gods absolute Promise but their disobedience to the Command of God If he say as the Remonstrators have done before him That they are unjustly blamed and damned for unbeleefe seeing they have no Object for their Faith no Christ to beleeve in We shall Answer That there is a reall Object proposed to their Faith though there be no such absolute Promise that God will give Grace to every man in particular the Object of Faith is the Written Word and more especially the Free Promises of Mercy unto wretched sinners for the sake of Christ which all men are commanded to beleeve both assensu intellectus amplexu voluntatis and for their unbeleefe they perish everlastingly If he shall ask Why God doth command them to beleeve in Christ seeing he never intended they should have any good or benefit by Christ I must say with the Apostle Rom. 9 20. O man who art thou that disputest against God We ought to look to his Commands and not curiously to search into his Councels Deut. 22 29. We know that the Preaching of the Gospell was ordained principally for gathering Gods Elect now because Ministers know not who are Elected and who are not It was necessary that the offer of Grace and command of Beleeving should be universall which will be imbraced and obeyed by all that are ordained to life § 7. His fourth and last Argument against the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is If the Covenant of Grace be an absolute Promise then no men in the world but wicked and ungodly men are in Covenant with God To which I Answer 1 It is very true That the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ in behalfe of sinners and none else Matthew 9.13 The whole need not a Phisitian but the sick If men were not sinners and ungodly there would be no need at all of the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Works would have been sufficient either it is made with sinners or none 2 It will not follow that when men are in Covenant or doe partake of some blessings of the Covenant that immediately the Covenant ceaseth when we are in Glory the Covenant shall not cease for the continuance of Glory is promised in the Covenant no lesse then Glory it selfe for which cause it is called an Everlasting Covenant So that his inference is very irrationall If the Covenant be an absolute Promise then none but wicked i. e. unregenerate persons are perfectly in Covenant with God It followes rather from his owne opinion for if the Covenant be a conditional Promise when the condition is performed the Covenant is so far forth fulfilled and the Preformers of it so far forth doe cease to be in Covenant and so consequently none but wicked men i. e. such as have not yet fulfilled the Condition shall be the objects of the Covenant or the persons to whom it doth belong Or else it must follow that none at all are perfectly in Covenant with God the Performers of the Condition are not because the Condition being performed the Covenant is fulfilled and thereby ceaseth to be a Covenant and the non-performers of the Condition are not for till the Condition be performed
men have no right or interest in the blessings promised By this Sophistry a man may soon dispute himselfe out of the Covenant and consequently out of hope § 8. I have now through the assistance of a good God and the advantage of a good Cause followed Mr. W. to the end of his race Hee seems weary of his walke as well as I. It is saies he beyond my purpose and worke to follow this pursuit any further i. e. I have no more to say for I dare say if he could have thought upon any thing else either to colour his own or to vilifie the cause which he doth oppose he would not have held it in his last Argument sufficiently shews he hath pumped to the bottom I must confesse I am as glad as he that I am arrived so near to my journeys end though the passage hath not been very difficult yet I must needs say it hath been to me somewhat more perhaps then ordinary troublesome in regard I have so little time and strength to bestow upon these paper conflicts And therefore though my adversary who I know wants neither words nor confidence shall offer a Reply I shall not ingage to make a Rejoynder Having declared my judgement with the Reasons of it I shall submit my selfe to the censures of the godly Reader beseeching the Father of Lights to lead both him and me into all truth and more especially into a fuller manifestation of our Free Redemption by Jesus Christ. § 9. But before I can take my leave of the Reader I must request his patience whilst I take notice of a passage or two in Mr. Woodbridges conclusion to his Worthy Sir First He tels him though it is likely something is or will be said against my Sermon which at this distance I am never like to hear of yet sure I am that nothing can be answered consistent with the truth of Scripture Concerning his Sermon I have said no more in his absence then I was ready to have spoken unto his face had the time and the patience I had almost said the passions of some of his friends given me leave I confesse I had not made my Replies so publick had he not offered such open wrongs both unto the Truth and to my selfe His Bravado sure I am that nothing can be answered c. argues rather his conceit of himselfe then the soundnesse of the Doctrine which he would maintain A bold face is usually the last refuge of a bad cause which the Advocate puts on to uphold his credit amongst the simple who are apt to thinke that hee hath the strongest Argument who shewes the greatest confidence I remember Campian the Jesuite in his Epistle to the Universities tels them he was as sure he had gotten the victory as that there is a God a Heaven a Faith a Christ. I shall not answer Mr. W. as Dr. Whitaker doth the Jesuite Pudet vanitatis jactationis arrogantiae tune audes promittere c. But I must needs say that he talks at too high arate and not as a man sensible in how many things wee offend all doth he know as much as all men besides Or can he judge of mens Answers before he hath heard them Had Parker Twisse Pemble c. nothing at all to say in defence of their Doctrine Doth he think this Sermon such a solid peece that all men living will be struck dumb therewith Though I am not conscious of deviating a sillable from the sence of the Scripture in this Discourse yet I dare not say That nothing can be answered unto what I have written I shall say of my writings as the Apostle of himselfe 1 Cor. 4.3 I know nothing in them inconsistent with the Scriptures yet are they not hereby justified All that I desire is that the Reader would bring them to the Standard of Truth and hold fast that which they shall finde agreeable thereunto This I am as sure of as Faith can make mee whose certainty is greater then that of Science that the whole glory of our Justification and Salvation ought to bee given to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ which would not be done if either of them did depend and were obtained by Works and Conditions performed by us § 10. Next he tells him How sorry he is for the breaches that are amongst us Truly if he be not I think he may having contributed not a little to the widening of them for before his Sermon we were upon the matter agreed concerning the point which is now in difference we had oftentimes Friendly and Christian communion which ever since hath been interrupted It was not a moneth before that I had Conference privately with my Reverend Neighbor my first Antagonist about this thing who told me That he held the New Covenant to be Conditional no otherwise then in respect of Gods order and method in bestowing the blessings of it To whom I replyed That if he asserted Conditions in the Covenant in no other sense we were agreed And he knows that in the Letters which had passed between us I had yeelded as much to wit That in improper speech the Covenant may be called Conditional though for the causes before mentioned I use not the phrase And therefore if any new breach hath hapned about this matter the guilt of it must rest on others and not on me For my own part I am not conscious in my self of the least breach in Affection with any of my Neighbors being ready to serve them in love as opportunity is offered though some of them have used me spitefully refusing as of old the Jews did towards the Samaritans to have any dealings with me so much as in Civil Affairs I confess I have forborne some of their Lectures because I would not by my silence give Testimony to that which I know to be heterodox and unsound And I thought good a while to desist from making open Exceptions until I had given a more publick account of my practise in this particular For the future I shall not put my self to the trouble of writing more Books unless it be to answer the Exceptions of my Reverend Neighbor who first engaged me in this Controversie either against my Doctrine or Practise But if in any Congregation of this City where a charge of Souls is incumbent on me I am present when these Fundamental Truths of the Gospel are darkned and undermined by strangers or others I shall God willing put on the Apostles resolution though the weakest and unworthiest of my Brethren Not to give place to them by subjection no not for an hour that the truth and simplicity of the Gospel may continue amongst us and yet with due respect unto all mens persons Let any man do the like by me I shall not account it a breach of peace If Mr. W. had any intent to heal our breaches I must needs say he was very unhappy in the choice of Means No prudent man