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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.