to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazâ—n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâ—ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
(e) Tam perfecta est haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Christo aut ab Apostolis ipsius additum fuerit quoad exactiorem bonorum operum normam sub novo Testamento sit adducta The Law is so perfect that nothing in Moral precepts either by Christ or his Apostles as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Testament Disp 18. § 39. Vrsinus in his definition of the Morall Law inserts this (f) Obligans omnes creaturas rationalies ad perfectam obedientiam internam externam binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward Pag. 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege (g) De perfectâ obedientiâ quam Lex requirit Of the perfect obedience which the law requires and presently laies down these words (h) Variis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus olim nunc depravata est doctrina de perfectâ obedientia quam Lex Dei requirit This doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires in all ages past hath been and is now depraved Bucan in his Common places Pag. 188. thus defines the Morall Law (i) Est praeceptio divina continens piè justéque coram Deo vivendi regulam requirens ab omni homine perfectam perpetuam obedientiam A divine injunction containing a rule to live piously and justly before God requiring of all men perfect and perpetuall obedience towards God I shall conclude with the Confession presented to both houses of Parliament by the Assembly of Divines Chap. 19. 2. The Law after his i. e. Adams fall continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteousnes and as such was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandements To these more might be addded but these are sufficient to take you out of that wonder that I should assert the perfection of it But I shall not rest barely upon the authority of these testimonies but offer to your consideration these following reasons Arguments evincing the pefection of the Morall Law 1. If the Law be not a fully perfect and compleat Rule of our lives then there is some sin against God which is not condemned in the Law this is clear Deviation from any rule given of God is a sin Deviation from that supposed additionall rule is a sin But there is no sin which the Law doth not condemn Sin is a Transgression of the Law 1 John 3 4. He that sins transgresseth the Law 2. If the Law alone discovers and makes sin known then it is a perfect full and compleat Rule this is plain Omne rectum index est obliqui But the Law alone discovers sin Rom. 3.20 This office is ascribed there to the Law and is no other but the Morall Law Had not the light of that Rule guided him in this work he had never made any such discovery And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means as appears in the quotation I had not known lust except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet 3. That which alone works wrath is the alone Rule and guide of our lives This is clear in what sence soever it is that we take working of wrath whether we understand it of working of wrath in man against God as some do Mans heart being apt to rise against him that will exercise Soveraignty over him Or of the wrath of God kindled against man upon transgression of the Law But it is the Law that works wrath it is ascribed to it and it alone Rom. 4.15 4. That which being removed will take away all possibility of sinning that is alone the Rule of our obedience This is plain were there any Rule the transgression of it would be still our sin But the Law being removed all possibility of sin is taken away Where there is no Law there is no transgression Rom. 4 15. 5. If the Law only adds strength to sin viz. for condemnation then the Law is the alone Rule of obedience This is plain Any other Rule whatsoever addes like strength to sin and upon transgression will condemne But the Law only addes strength to sin 1 Cor. 15.56 The strength of sin is the Law 6. Either the epithite morall is not justly given to the Law or else it is a perfect Rule of manners that is of obedience This is plain for morall denotes as Amesius observes that use of it But this epithite given to the Law and appropriated to it was never as I think upon any such account challenged Ergo. 7. Either this new Rule doth transcend the old Rule of the Morall Law requiring a more exact degree of perfection as Papists speak of their Evangelicall counsels Socinians of their additionall Gospell precepts or else it falls short and admits of obedience in a degree more low If it require obedience more high then even the doers of the Law in the greatest highth and possible supposed perfection though equall to the Angels are sinners The Law might be fulfilled and yet disobedience charged If it fall short of the old Rule which it seems is your opinion seeing you confesse an imperfection is our personall righteousnesse as it refers to the old Rule and assert a perfection as it relates to the new Rule then the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemnes and so you bring in a discrepency between them and find an allowance for transgression So that I think I have sufficient authority divine and humane with reasons that are cogent to conclude that which I have asserted That the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law is a perfect Rule and the only Rule You come in here with six several exceptions taken against the (a) Exceptions taken against the perfection of the Law perfection of this Law or singularity of it as rule 1. You demand What say you for matter of duty to the positive (b) 1. Exception precepts for the Gospel of Baptism the Lords day the Officers and a government of the Church c Is the Law of nature the only rule for these And foreseeing what I would answer as well you might you adde If you say they are reducible to the second commandment I demand 1. What is the second commandment for the affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his positive institution 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de speciebus c. To this I think I may answer out of your own mouth Aphor. pag. 149. The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment In case we break the commandments in the neglect of them then the commandment requires the observation of them For which you may consult also Mr. Burges Vindiciae legis pag. 149. Balls Catechisme Amesius his Sciographia Dod on the Commandments Downhams Tables Zanchy each of them on this Commandment and Cawdry and Palmer
his reason seeing by baptisme grace is given If any one be rightly disposed to receive the effect of baptisme in the instant that he receives perfect Baptisme he shall receive grace therefore he receives the Sacrament with sufficient dignity and sanctity further adding Seeing this is a Sacrament of the dead grace is not praerequired for the receiving of it being ordained to confer grace that disposition is sufficient upon which the Sacrament confers such an effect Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 3. Q. 68. Dis 24. art 4. Sec. 2. p. 250. Our opinion being otherwise of the work of baptisme it is otherwise concerning admission to baptisme when men are willing to be received into the number of Christians and will engage for Christian wayes which necessarily implies a profession of repentance of all unchristian practices we judge them to have right of admission Thirdly How far rules laid down by some Fathers and Councils for the way of discipline did exceed in rigour hath been the complaint of many not admitting those that had been overtaken by temptation to Church-fellowship notwithstanding any evidence of repentance till after many years space of humiliation In which time how much advantage might be given to Satan let men of experience judge Mr. F. himself dislikes their long deferring of their Catechumeni from baptisme and may not others have liberty to manifest their dislike as well as he Fourthly Let it be taken into due consideration whether such rigour in holding converts off so long a space and requiring such an height in preparatory graces were not a great remora to the progresse of the Gospel and gaining in men to Christian profession How speedy a progresse the Gospel made in the Apostles times we may see in the Acts of the Apostles and Ecclesiastical Story Dr. Andrewes in his Preface to his Work on the Commandements quotes a testimony of Egesippus That by the diligent instructing of the Church there was no known Common-Wealth of any part of the world inhabited but within 40 years after Christs Passion received a great shaking off of heathenish Religion But how slowly it proceeded after some time is over-plain May not the difference of their way that thus swerved from the Apostles and men in Apostolique times be assigned as a great reason We find them facile in admission but in the mean time exceeding plain in making known what was required of them in order to the end of their professed faith their everlasting salvation that were admitted Fifthly If it may be granted which according to Scripture rules can never be denied that men wrought off from Turcisme Paganisme Judaisme and brought to a profession of Christianity and a professed engagement to Christian wayes have their right and stand in title to baptisme If then upon observation of inconveniences arising as jealousies conceived that they may offer themselves out of design to work themselves into a fairer opportunity of persecution as was suspected in Paul the Church in Prudence for some space shall delay their admission I shall not contend Onely I assert their right and justifie their practice that proceed accordingly and unlesse some great cause appear to the Churches prejudice tendring themselves they are actually to be received A Digression for Vindication of Chap. 32. of the Treatise of the Covenant from Mr. Baxters Exceptions touching the Faith that entitles to Baptisme HEre I am put upon it to take into consideration The occasion of this Digression that which Learned Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been pleased to oppose against me Though he be large I shall make it my businesse if it may be to be more brief I entitled the two and thirtieth Chapter of my Treatise of the Covenant in this manner A dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptisme being a Corollary naturally as I yet think inferred from the Doctrine that I had before delivered of the latitude of the Covenant explaining my self that I meant such a faith that assents to Gospel-truths though not affecting the heart to a full choyce of Christ and therefore short of that Faith which is justifying and saving ratifying it with several arguments In which I might well have thought that I should have found my ancient friend my Second rather then an Adversary considering what he had delivered pag. 224. of his Treatise of Infants Church-Membership This opinion Mr. Baxters concession that the Covenant of grace which Baptisme sealeth is onely to the Elect and is not conditional is one of the two master pillars in the Antinomian fabrick and afterwards If any shall think that this affirming that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into a Covenant of grace conditional be any part of the Arminian errors as the whole scope of Scriptures is against them so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfy He that will deny reprobates to be so farre within the Covenant of grace must not onely denye infant Baptisme but all Sacraments till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be Elect. I did never rise so high in words for my opinion as the Reader may here see my adversary hath done for me and I shall have more occasion to observe his concessions in this thing But how to reconcile all with that which pag 327. of the same Treatise he delivers I know not If men be taught once that it is a Faith short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to Baptisme as having true right in foro Dei it will make foul work in the Church This he asserts with five several arguments to which in the Chapter quoted I gave a brief answer not once naming the Author that if it might be such contests with a man that I so much honour might not have been observed and yet the truth not deserted Before he enters upon any refutation of my arguments or vindication of his own he is pleased to spend nine full pages to shew how farre he takes unregenerate men to be in Covenant and to discover as he saies my mind in this point Neere to the close of that discourse he saies that what I mean by Covenanting he despairs to know which surely will be the Readers wonder that knowes what he hath said pag. 224. before mentioned I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening of the Covenant then in all c. And as he despaires to know my meaning so I as much despair ever to make it known to him He quotes very many expressions of mine and knowes my meaning in none of them and some that I borrow from others as Dr. Preston and Pareus and he knowes neither my meaning nor theirs in them And in case I should make attempt if it might be to make it further clear he hath still an art to render it obscure He observes that I say that which I think all say that the accepting of the word preacht
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
That may be easily said but I think hardly proved It is no empty sign if in the right use of it it may prove serviceable to it I am sure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God and yet no immediate certain right to their end which is to be the power of God to salvation It will be an hard task to prove the certainty of all their salvation that in the right of God stand entitled to any Ordinance of his the reason will hold of all as well as one they are not empty and vain The Jewes had right to Circumcision in the flesh and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it and yet were void of Circumcision of the heart or forgiveness of sin The conclusion is That it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special grace that is the end of Baptisme at least remission of sin And so upon the right use of common grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special grace which is taken for Pelagianisme It will far rather follow from that opinion that a common and special grace differ onely gradually not specifically According to that promise of our Saviour Matth. 13.12 To him that hath shall be given which our Divines have still understood of graces of the same and not of a different kind he that hath common graces and improves them shall have a larger measure of those graces and he that hath spiritual graces and improves them shall have a more large measure of spiritual gifts And if they be both of one kind then Christs promise holds from the one to the other It will be an hard matter I think to prove that all that have right in Ordinances though they make no right use shall attain to the end of them Argument 5. vindicated My fifth Argument was An enquiry into Simon Maegus his Baptisme That faith upon which Simon Magus was in the Primitive times baptized is that which admitteth to Baptisme Simon himself believed and was baptized Acts 8.13 But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying To which a sudden answer is given Concedo totum sed desideratur Conclusic He is certainly much to seek both in Syllogismes and Common reason that could not infer and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that Ergo a faith that is short of justifying entitles to Baptisme And so I have the whole in question yielded and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if once granted But as soon as it is yielded me a Means is unkindly used to take it away from me And it is further answered That may be said to admit to Baptisme which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did If such liberty of interpretation be yielded who may not easily elude the sense of any Scripture-Text the Text saith that Simon believed and was baptized Is it now enough for us to say he seemed to believe and therefore those whom he thus deceived were bound to baptize him Let the whole Text be viewed and the former Verse taken in and then let us see whether such a Glosse be fair When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and women Then Simon himself believed also That faith upon which all the other Samaritans were admitted to Baptisme Simon was admitted upon also But it was not a seeming to believe but a believing that admitted the other Samaritans Therefore it was believing not a seeming to believe that admitted Simon When the Holy Ghost saith Simon believed as he saith other Samaritans believed and his faith satisfied Philip full of the Holy Ghost to give him admittance How may we that stand at this distance dare to call it into question If the Seal were put to a meer blank paper why is not all reversed upon discovery of a Misprision in proceeding So any man would do that had put a Seal where no name was written Why was not all ipso facto made null what reason could be given but that Peter had he been of that mind should have said Repent of this thy wickednesse that upon testimony given of thine integrity thou mayest yet be baptized But when the Text sayes he did believe and Philip upon that account thus proceeded and no retractation upon such discovery was made I believe no such Glosse is to be suffered My sixth and last Argument was In case onely justifying faith give admission to Baptisme then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned To which Mr. Baxter sayes very little but onely refers to what he hath said to Mr. Tombs and I having had occasion before and may have occasion hereafter to speak of it shall here make no further defence of it Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifies gives title to Baptisme SEeing these Arguments have given Mr. Baxter so little satisfaction I shall endeavour to make some addition onely premising this That Baptisme is our door of Entrance or way of admission into the Church visible which I shall take for granted seeing Mr. T. pag. 54. of his Apology as Mr. Baxter observes hath yielded it and Mr. Baxter to my hand Treatise of Infant-Baptisme pag. 24. by Arguments hath proved it If then I shall prove that such are to be received into the Church I shall take the Conclusion to be the same as if they said they were to be baptized and proving their right to be taken into the Church I prove their right to be baptized 1. They that have right in the sight of God to many and Arg. 1 great Priviledges of his gift have right in his sight to the first and leading priviledge this I think cannot be denyed Having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptisme But those of a faith that is short of that which justifies have right to many and great priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much profit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptisme 2. Those that are a people by Gods gracious dispensations Arg. 2 nigh unto God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear Men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensation nigh unto God comparative to others this is
the Disciples of Christ for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense by their affections to him and suffering of affliction for him are of singular use Christ himself hath gone before us in it But upon the notation of the word because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples to make the subject of that Sacrament to be onely those that reach these markes is besides the holy Ghosts intention All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto for the bringing of it on to Christ I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made or how in reason and according to Scripture it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members SECT XI Proposition 9 THe Sacrament of the Supper no more then other Ordinances is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit that are actually regenerate and in grace The Lords Supper is not limited to those that have received a new life by the Spirit others as they may be admitted without sin so they are in a capacity and possbility to receive benefit from it This I am not ignorant that some will question But let these consider before they censure First That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said Arguments a priviledge of the Church as visible put into the hands of those for edification that are not able to discern men of spiritual life and invisible interest And though there be characteristicall differnces whereby a man in grace and he that is short of it may be distinguished whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good yet they are such whereby a man is to make trial of himself onely they are Spirit-works and none knowes them in any man save the Spirit that is in him and therefore no marks for any others cognizance For a Minister of Christ to dispence by command the Sacrament to many when he knowes that it is of possible use and benefit to some few unto these it is food and nourishment unto life unto the others as Rats-bane Poyson and onely for death is such a snare that may hold him in his administration in all horror and amazement A fad dilemma either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruine and destruction of so many of them I know no possible way that can be supposed or so much as pretended for avoidance but in the Name of Christ to give warning to all in whom this new life by the Spirit is not to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate on their peril to keep off Let them say some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered and then if they come their blood is on their own heads and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul But to this I have three things to say 1. That it is as I suppose without all Scripture-precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinance of Christ I know we must warn men of their sin and the judgement hanging over their heads for sin in which let it be our prayer that we may be more faithful but that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all addresse to Ordinances I have not learnt 2. I say this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denyed unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith and the saving work of repentance to hold back when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorne out of our own sides and as much as in us lyes thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry thirsty and poor in spirit people How many may we suppose are in grace through a work happily begun on their souls yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace or reach to any discovery of it Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts being yet babes or rather embryo's in grace The first that appears upon light received is an army of lusts and potent corruptions as we know Paul sets it out This cloudes for present any other weak work that as yet in present is wrought In this time Satan is not wanting he did not shew so much artifice before to lessen their sin but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it and as he was industrious before to seduce now he is as busie to accuse He led the incestuous man to incontinency 1 Cor. 7.4 And we know Paul feares least upon continuance of the Church-censure he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow 2 Cor. 2.8 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance or their genuine fruits much lesse are they able by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls Sometimes by reason of some sharpe conflict of temptation being under the shock and assault of it and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore or the favour of God now it is under a cloud which I believe was Pauls case when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him and a thorne in the flesh given him seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens 2 Cor. 12. and therefore had need of Ordinances for support Sometimes on a soyle received by temptation of which his own heart and not the Church is witnesse and therefore is at a losse of the joy of his salvation and stands in need of strength for recovery Sometimes by over-much sloath and rust contracted on his graces through negligence which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging her self too much in carnal ease Cant. 5.2 I have put off my coat how shall I put it on I have washed my feet how shall I defile them Sometimes God out of prerogative withdrawing the rayes of his Spirit and refusing to testifie with our spirits in which case the soul that is most upright with God and sincere in his feare walks in darknesse and sees no light in which there is need of all communications from God and attendance upon him in Ordinances When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth thus warned to keep back and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated will not they put in their name and say their souls are now spoke to They must therefore absent themselves and so the smoaking flax is quenched
regenerate or unregenerate which is an undiscernable work and accordingly to admit or refuse SECT XIII Proposition 11. The Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring a man of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest to the terms and propositions of the Covenant may serve to work a man of profession of faith unto faith saving and justifying a man in name the Lords to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm First Men of that interest that baptisme receives as the intention of the work in order to salvation these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation as the end of the work likewise But Baptisme receives men of visible profession onely and visible interest as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation Therefore the Lords Supper carries on these by sanctification as the intention of the work to salvation The Proposition cannot be denyed unlesse we will without reason bring in that vast difference between these two outward vâ—â—â—ble Ordinances both intrusted in the hands of man as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest and the other restrained to invisible members The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation the other shall be in capacity to nourish and bring on very few The Assumption cannot be denyed That Baptisme receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation and hath been abundantly proved we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness which is onely a visible interest men of years were baptized and by just warrant yet may in case not baptized upon a visible profession The conclusion then followes that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work that Baptisme receives to salvation Secondly If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith and sanctification to salvation But it is the mind of God in the Gospell revealed that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Supper The Lords Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation The Proposition is clear unlesse we will make mens admission most mens admission meerly vain having no power nor any capacity to advance their happinesse but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement Whatsoever the secret will of God to us unknown is that in the event it shall prove yet the work it self must have a tendency and power respective to those for whom it is appointed for edification not for destruction The Assumption is evident that those of visible interest having not attained sanctification according to the mind of God revealed in his Word should have admittance by the barres that are assigned for mens exclusion The alone barres that are ordinarily assigned to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table are ignorance Error and Scandal But many that cannot be charged with ignorance error or scandall are yet short of sanctification Many short of sanctification then have no barre to their admission Either visible interest with capacity to improve it or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission But saving interest in â—he Covenant cannot then to use Mr Cobbets words Vindication pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin or anomie breach of rule or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule never to administer any Church ordinances since they sometimes shall break that rule in administring it to hypocrites and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones yet not being able to know that secret infallibly they observe not the rule in faith but doubtingly and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations If any reply that saving interest in the Covenant is the rule but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule but as farre as our charity can judge men to be in grace we must admit them to this seal of grace To this I have several things to reply 1. God never puts mens charity to this work as respective to admission to ordinances to judge whether in grace or not whether regenerate or in unregeneration And indeed charity which is assigned by some to that place is most unfit to judge A Judge or Umpire in a businesse must be impartial and have nothing to byasse him on any hand But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins which is no blemish of the grace but a demonstration that this is none of its office If then man must judge as he is most unmeet his reason and not his love must take the chair for it and go as high as conjecture can reach 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake then the rule is broke which though these will say is not the admitters sin seeing the thing is not so scibile or of possibility to be known and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge yet a seal is by this meanes put to a blank which is no small prophanation and the ordinance administred solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement 3. Though we infallibly know a mans unsanctified condition and were able to charge it yet whilest it is not open and breakes not into scandal we cannot upon this account as is confest exclude him from the Sacrament That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6 observes we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind Ravanellus as the last man in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant yet Judas was known to Christ to be a thief a Devil and yet he receives him Christ had doubtlesse power vested in him for his exclusion The non-suspition of the Apostles nor the close carriage of his treachery could not then have excusâ—d his receiving in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest though unsanctified might be admitted And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witnesse though it be a truth yet it serves not to take off the Argument Had it not been the mind of God that
heart so in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eye and by the eye conveyeth himself into the heart And therefore it is well called a visible Sermon What can be more plain then this to set the out the power of the Sacrament to soul contrition true humiliation and mortification Too many that professe Faith have their hearts lift up and live not by faith Here is a way to bring them down when they see sin to be of such a provoking nature that onely the sufferings of the Sonne of God are able to satisfie that their demerit doth put him upon a necessity of all these woes These are certainly heart melting considerations If it be yet objected that the Provincial Assembly at London speak to their own communicants whom they suppose to be in grace To this I reply that in case that should fail and some at least should have their predominant lusts lurking and treachery against the Covenant as in Judas against Christ harboured it can be of no danger to say that here is a means to work them on to humiliation and brokennesse of spirit 2. If any yet say that their thoughts are otherwise of this Sacrament I answer their words best speak their thoughts and we see what they say The very breaking of the bread say they understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts and the breaking of the bread may be looked upon understandingly by an unsanctified man if there be truth in their Propositions as I doubt not but they are most true then my Conclusion is true likewise We may make up if you please this part of the Argument thus A sin aggravating ordinance is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords supper is a sinne aggravating ordinance Therefore it is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance For the other branch of the Assumption that this ordinance is the holding out of the pardon of sin needs no proof This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sinne Matth. 26. Fifthly That which is annext to the Word to second it in that very thing which works the soul unto conversion to good may bring the person of Covenant interest up to the termes of the Covenant may work one of profession of faith onely unto faith saving and justifying This none can deny being added to the Word as it 's second in such a work it well may have an hand in the working of it But the Sacrament is annext to the Word to second it in that very thing which works the soul unto conversion to God The Assumption is manifest If we consider what the Word does for conversion and the whole in which the energy and power of it as an Ordinance is exercised then we shall soon see that this Sacrament is added as a second in that work The Word converts in holding out sin in its defilements and danger in the discovery of the loathsome nature of it and the cursed effects that follow upon it together with Christ in the promises to save from it I know no other way that the Word hath to bring a soul in sin to God but in setting forth the lost and undone condition of it and so to bring to conviction compunction and enquiry what to do and then to make tender of Christ In this method souls as we find on record have been brought home to God of which there might be frequent instances Now that this Sacrament is added to the Word for further discovery of sin in the defilement and danger to hold out Christ in his death taking away sin need not to be proved It is true that the first detection of sin is by the rule of the Law and therefore the Apostle sayes By the Law is the knowledge of sin In case the question be put whether this or that act be sin then neither the tender of Christ in the Gospel nor yet the Sacrament can have any hand in the determination of it but they both serve for the aggravation of sin to lay it open in the dimensions and danger of it Sin is no where so seen in its height as in the sorrowes and sufferings of Christ as is by all affirmed and these sufferings we know the Word holds out for conversion from sin And the visible Word of the Sacrament seconds the Word in this very thing to set out Christs death to lay before our eyes Christ broken for us both for the aggravation of sin and for the pardon of it Thus if you please you may put the argument If the Sacrament doth the same thing as the Word doth in conversion then the Sacrament cannot be denyed to have an hand in conversion But the Sacrament as we see does the same thing as the Word it serves to the heightning of sin and the setting out of the pardon of sin Therefore it followes that the Sacrament may have an hand in conversion Sixthly That which by frequent experience we see the Sacrament works toward and for ought we are able to judge works unto that we may well conclude it is designed and appointed of God to work This cannot fairly be denyed yet if any think that this of it self is not of full strength seeing our experience may deceive us we may conceive what is not Let these then joyn to it what hath been already said This experience added to so much evidence of reason I doubt not but will be found to have strength in it And I put it for their sakes that say Let any give instance of any man or woman that hath at any time been converted by the Sacrament And that there are frequent experiences of the Sacraments working towards this thing is plain How frequent is it with men to have affrightings soul-shakings tremblings strong present resolutions against sin upon their approach to this Ordinance being convinced of it to be a duty that they ought to go to it How mightily are their spirits often affected in it If we make that an argument of the power of the Word towards wicked men in the affrighting and astonishment of them in the terrifying and amazement stopping for present their full swinge in sin and wickednesse as we know it is ordinarily with those that set out the power of the Word see Dr. Reynolds on Psal 110. pag. 150. why then should we not make the same effects that we see ordinarily produced by the Sacrament to be evidences of the like power in the Sacrament And as we read of an Ahab a Felix a Zedekiah an Herod thus startled by the Word so we may see and know such as these alike startled and affected at the Sacrament Superstition perhaps works it in some But we find the work in others in whom such superstition hath no place It can be no other then the Majestie of the Ordinance the high aggravation of sin and the glory of Christ set out in it All this
in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
conclusion with me is de fide when it is concluded 4. He saies I must have better proof before I can believe that it is assurance of our own sincerity or actual justification which the Apostle calls the full assurance of faith Heb. 10.22 And I think he is the first man amongst orthodox Divines that hath doubted that assurance of acceptance is meant in that place Faith is that grace say the last Annotations whereby we either do or may approach unto God with full assurance of acceptance Is not that boldnesse in our addresses mentioned ver 19. an evident symptome of it And is not sincerity fet forth in those words having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water as the basis or bottome of it not of our acceptance but of our assurance I must hear somewhat more before I can question it There followes 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sincerity in the description of faith Heb. 11.1 unlesse you mean that hope is part of faith and assurance the same with hope both which need more proof Hope may be without assurance and when it is joyned with it yet is not the same thing onely such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of hope And can you not discern a double encomium of faith in those words The first with respect to things past and present as well as things to come where it is said to be The evidence of things not seen Faith makes that evident which otherwise would not be known The other respective to things to come and that not evil but onely good not things feared but hoped expressed in these words Faith is the substance of things hoped for both of them rather expressing what faith does then what faith is and I know not why that speech of hope should be brought in here when it is onely said that the good things hoped for are that which faith realizes to the soul It is said further 6. It is true that faith may be said as you speak to realize salvation to the soul that is when the soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a glory and salvation to be expected and enjoyed by believers as Christ hath promised ere faith apprehendeth it as real or certain and so resolves the doubt And is this all that faith can possibly do and for which this high praise is here given unto it Against this I say First This was expressed in the former branch the evidence of things not seen faith believes a heaven as well as a creation Secondly a faith short of justifying may do this an historical faith assents to the highest dogmatical truthes Thirdly will you have the full assurance of hope Heb. 6.11 to be no other then to get assurance that there is a heaven though we shall never come to heaven which would be a contradiction for hope hath possession in expectation Fourthly doth not our hope enter into that within the vail whither our forerunner is gone before us Heb. 6.19 and are we not saved by hope Rom. 8.24 Faith then being said to be the substance of things hoped for it doth not barely tell us that there is a heaven that is too lank and lean a commendation of it but the office of it is to realize the possession of it to us It followes But when the doubt is whether I be a true believer saith resolves it not Faith hath its hand in the resolving of this doubt in believing from the Scriptures what are the Symptomes or cognizances of true believing and gathering them up by reflex upon it self It followes And when the doubt is whether this certain glory and salvation shall be mine faith onely cooperateth to the resolve of it by affording us one of the propositions but not both and not wholly the conclusion If faith affords us one of the propositions and findes the other in the Scriptures that is to me sufficient It followes 7. I am of Dr. Amesius his mind that it is one of faiths most eminent acts by which it is there described But undoubtedly you were not so in your sixth animadversion when you left it so low as we have heard and made it no more then the faith of wicked men may reach There is added But so think not they that tell us that is none of the instrumental justifying act which is there described But doubtlesse they may very well think so This here mentioned is a more eminent work of faith then that of justifying as a child on a Giants head is further removed from the earth and nearer the clouds then the Giant himself Faith that gives assurance presupposeth the justifying act already done by it self and addes more to it when a man believes savingly there is Certitudo objecti he that believes shall be saved but this here mentioned is Certitudo subjecti when the good hoped for is assured to the soul If there be any other promise made of God for good this work of faith I confesse takes it in and I do not believe that the Apostle doth limit this work of faith to the hope of salvation but I am sure he doth not exclude it that being the chiefest thing in our hope that is undoubtedly chiefly intended and might well by me be mentioned It followes 8. This which you took to be a good answer is that great mistake which hath so hardened the Papists against us and were it not for this point I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest about conditional sealing as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main If that be that great mistake I am still in the mistake and you are the first man that ever went about to rectifie it but you herein fail that you shew not wherein the mistake lies Those Divines that deny faith to be assurance that were as much as to define a man by such excellencies that are to be found in few men and so to exclude the common pitch of men from the species of mankind do not yet deny but that faith may attain to assurance It followes 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer when you confine it to those onely that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they believe i. e. savingly I think that they as well as I confine it to those that you here mention It followes I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by assured grounds c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative I believe that strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to life and few there be that find it There are not many we may fear that do savingly believe and many of those are not yet assured that they do believe and to this Mr. Baxter hath spoke abundantly sufficient in his Saints rest It followes 10. Demonstrations
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
world and death by sin so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned 4. The readinesse and pronenesse of little ones to run upon sin is an evidence of it The thornes bryars and weeds that the earth casts out when precious flowers and choise plants are more hardly nourished is an argument that the earth is under a curse and is not now as once it was The sins that even in childhood appear and together with age grow forwards when graces are difficultly planted and that which is good very hardly produced is as great an evidence of a mans innate degeneration This even Heathens could see though they knew not whence it was e Homines natura sua esse malos induci non posse ut justitiam colant Plato observed that men by nature are wicked and that they cannot be brought to learne righteousnesse and f Hominem à natura noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo fragili atque infirmo animo ad molestias anxio ad timores humili in quo divinus ignis sit obrutus Referunt Theol. Lydenses Disp 15. Thes 6. Tully lamented that man is brought into the world by his stepdame nature with a body naked frail and weak a mind anxious in troubles low under fears weak for labour prone to lust in whom every Divine spark is overywhelmed If any man demand how it comes to passe that we are thus we must look as far as Adam to see the inlet of it By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Rom. 5.19 His was peccatum originans giving the rise to all evils in us thence issued peccatum originatum our original condition as before decribed Sin seizing upon the Angels made them unclean and they have through that defilement the denomination of unclean spirits sin seizing upon man hath rendered him unclane It defiled not onely the person of man but the nature of man had man stood all mankind had stood man falling all mankind became filthy Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one Job 14.4 Adam begat a son in his own likenesse Gen. 5.3 like himself when he had lost the image of God what sin made man that an infant is so far as of capacity to be not to act sin he that can do nothing cannot do evil but in them there are those principles that shew themselves in action so far as there is power to act A young Serpent doth sting none poysons none but there is in them a poysonous and destroying na ure which growes as nature growes 5. By the duty incumbent upon Christians to put off the old man Ephes 4.22 which is not so called in opposition to that which is young as though man grew up to it by degrees many years being gone over his head before he had gotten that name but in opposition to that which is new as we see ver 23. The old hath the precedency of the new and is before it as the old garments are worne and put off before the new put on why must all of necessity be new if the old would serve the turn Secondly This sin which is mans hereditary estate This Original state of man is not onely a want of Primâ—tive integrity but is attended with universal defilement hath in it not onely a want of that Priwitive purity which God stamped upon man according to his own likenesse but also an universal defilement and pollution Therefore the Apostle setting out this estate under the name of the old man gives it this character corrupt according to deceitfull lusts Ephes 4.22 All the pollution in the world is from lust 2 Pet. 1 4. that is the sink and source from whence all proceeds and the old man is wholly made up of these corrupt filthy and defiling principles They promise better when they draw aside but that is their work and therefore as they are corrupt so they are branded as deceitful likewise Upon this account it is that man is dead in trespasses and sins able to rise no higher in nature then that which is sin and this renders his conversation to be according to the course of this world after the prince of the power of the air the former is his pattern and the later is his Soveraign the one is followed the other served And consequently with guilt or ordination to punishment In fulfilling the desires or wills of the flesh and mind Ephes 2.23 serving divers lusts and pleasures Tit. 3.3 as wholly enslaved by this defiling principle And as this is of the being so guilt or ordination to punishment is a necessary adjunct or consequent of it Death is in as great a latitude as sin Rom. 5.12 the proper wages of that work Rom. 6.23 Therefore all that have a nature thus defiled are by nature the children of wrath Ephes 2.3 Men may descant as they will upon the word and tell us of another use of it in prophane Authors but all their wit will not work men from under this guilt or gain him any thing more in his birth-state but wrath for his portion Thirdly To restore man to his Primitive happiness his nature must be healed Nature must be healed and guilt removed for restitution of man to his Primitive glory and his guilt removed there must be a change wrought in his principles and a pardon vouchsafed of his sin If either the stain continue or the guilt hold man will be wretched till he be again like God and reconciled to God his case is forlorne This needs no proof man was without stain or guilt when God made him upright his stain must be washed and guilt removed or else his happinesse is not repaired And this was the converted Corinthians glory they were under the defilement of Adultery Idolatry Fornication Drunkennesse c. and upon this account under the sad doome of exclusion out of the Kingdom of heaven but being washed sanctified justified the doome is reversed However you Interpret these several phrases we have their deliverance from the stain and guilt of sin in them Fourthly Either of both of these is the work of Christ and the happy priviledge of all of Gospel-interest Either of both of these is the work of Christ by his blood and Spirit He takes off the stain in the work of Regeneration and Sanctification by the power of his Spirit as by our fall we were dead in sin so by this new work on our hearts we are dead to sin we were free from righteousnesse now we are alive to righteousnesse Rom. 8.11 If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you When we were dead in sins he hath quickened us together with Christ Ephes 2.5 Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might Sanctifie and cleanse it
righteousnesse of faith as before was hinted in opposition to and to distinguish it from the righteousnesse of works required in the Covenant entered with man in his integrity and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law for the attainment of salvation That of works is called by the name of our righteousnesse Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.18 being to be done by our selves in our own persons as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law being required at our hands by the Law so that salvation gained this way is of our selves of works Ephes 2.8 9. This other is called the righteousnesse of faith in this text as also Phil. 3.9 Heb. 11.7 Faith being the hand that receives it of Gods free gift by grace it is called also the righteousnsse of God Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 Either as being the gift of God which that phrase seems to imply the righteousnesse which is of God by faith or else as being the work of Christ that is God So that salvation this way gained is of grace and the gift of God Ephes 2.8 These two are still opposed one to the other when one is followed the other is quit and left Rom. 10.3 They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God so also Rom. 10.5 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith 2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise that is the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith speaketh this language so that Sacraments sealing this righteousnesse they seal the whole of this Covenant 3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon and following Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse are here by the like figure comprized as appears by the Apostles words v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse This righteousnesse and blessednesse is made one and the same in those words of the Apostle Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant that brings man into Covenant with God is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought so that he is the whole of all that good that is comprized in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle Rom. 10.4 speaking of the error of the Jewes in going about to establish their own righteousnesse and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God he saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth that is finie consummans as Gomarus saith not consumens The end at which the Law aimed and not putting an end and period to it One Christ assumes to himself It becometh us to fulfil all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 The other he disclaimes Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil The Law calls us to righteousnesse but is not able to work it in us Christ hath done it for us and in our stead He is therefore called our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us in the Sacrament or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour there is a sufficient proof of this observation Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse and interesting us in this Covenant-promise They that will not allow that faith should be called an instrument of justification yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ that doth justifie And if either may be allowed as I do not doubt but that both will hold current this will hold that faith is considered here as an instrument and not as a work neither yet as an instrument of the soul producing any act beyond its self as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour but as receiving and taking in a gift from God This the Phrase of the Apostle Phil. 3.9 doth clear The righteousness of God by faith otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works yea when the words are the righteousnesse of faith the meaning must still be the righteousnesse of works as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging receives pay for working But these are made directly opposite one to the other and not confounded one with the other Rom. 10.5 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse but as an instrument applying Christ and interesting us in his righteousnesse These Positions being premised The Point proved the Observation may be easily proved that the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace and may be made good in an induction of particulars Circumcision the leading Sacrament of the old Covenant is expresly here spoken to and here we see what is the thing signified in it and sealed by it And in case we saw no more in it then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw that it was a note of distinction between them and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant yet we know that this distinction was grounded and founded in Christ By Scriptures The one stood in a visible relation to him and the other were strangers from him And the Apostle Col. 2.11 12. is full in the proof of it Having said that we are compleat in Christ enjoying him we want nothing it might be objected that we want the very leading Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God which was Circumcision The Apostle answers that in him we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ This Circumcision did figure Deut. 30.6 Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 29. And this is the work of Christ as we see in the Apostles words and therefore circumcision led to him For the following Sacrament of the Passeover if we look to the letter of the institution together with the explication given we shall find it
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo geneâ—e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded
the mercy-seat durst not lift up his eyes to heaven seeing a large list of sins and not of vertues or praise-worthy carriages goes away justified rather then the Pharisee Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified not yet actually justified which also was their case Acts 2.37 with the Jaylours Act. 16.30 which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith who according to Scripture are actually justified and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it There followes I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification he saith Faith justifies that is Fides justificat i. e. disponit ad justitiam Respondeo Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus non disponendo ad justitiam Nec justificatio fit per motum sicut calefactâ—o sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâ—oprie fidei tribueretur Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa nec dispositio generat sed est via ad generationem Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat it disposes or fits for Justification and answers A wrested glosse unknown to Scripture and contrary to it For faith is said to justifie by receiving the gift of righteousnesse without works and not by disposing for righteousnesse Neither is Justification by motion as is warmth but by imputations And if it were by motion it were most improperly ascrib'd to faith Neither is motion to a thing the thing it self nor doth a disposition obtain any thing but is the way to obtain it Therefore faith do's not justifie by any motion of disposition Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is That this is onely donation or the will of the donour signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits the receiver is not the giver and therefore not the conveyer of right I wonder what this is a reason of if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned it is above me to see any reason in it It is further said Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is onely giving that effecteth this right But it effects no such right without receiving where it is given upon that proviso that it be thus and thus received After much ado and to what purpose let others judge The conclusion is The great thing therefore that I affirm is this that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousnesse yet doth it not justifie proxime formaliter as such but as the condition of the gift performed And the great thing that I would affirm is That the instrumental apprehending Christ or righteousnesse is this condition of the gift It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it and so the summe is That faith doth not justifie formaliter proxime as apprehending Christ or righteousnesse because it doth justifie proxime formaliter as thus apprehending Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture The eighth and last of his accurate heads followes In which he saies he opens his meaning together about this point though as he saies with some repetitions I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer which to the Reader would be too troublesome yet somewhat is observable that I find not before Faith saith he must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of right Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right then perfect obedience according to the old rule as Mr. Baxter calls it must first be perfect obedience in actual being before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works and so it will follow that that Covenant hath no condition seeing there is no such actual obedience A condition may be a condition though not made good though never made good The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philistine was slain and had stood as a condition though had never been given in If he mean that faith must be faith before the condition be made good this is false for the actual being of it is the making of it good and so it is as much as if I said I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi and conditio praestita when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita as though I should distinguish between Abrahams sacrificing of his son and his obedience of Gods command in sacrificing him when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition were somewhat but to say that we believe or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it Having led the Reader through all this accuratenesse I must further consider his animadversions I said The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit man cannot justifie himself by believing without God and God will not justifie an unbelieving man faith then is the act of man man believes yet the instrument of God that justifies onely believers To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scornes in place of answers 1. It is said The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification It is yet somewhat for illustration for which alone it was brought though nothing for proof for which it was never intended 2. It is said The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking and that is more then nothing What need he to have told me this when I had told it him before as the Reader may see in words which he omits I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it self Here is an exception to fill up the number If I move my pen to write before it move then I write something without my pen. 4. It is said It is not so easily proved as said That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith But why is not this disproved with ease I would know for my learning what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving soul is
clearnesse as to accuse the doctrine of his adversaries which are all Reformers Forreign and English of such notable obscurity I must now look into that which he hath said for the sole-sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Gospel to stand in stead of faith for an instrument in this work And if I meet with no more satisfaction in this then in the former I must crave leave to say that I have very little in either I said in my Treatise of the Covenant The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of justification adding This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise up man to justification To which Mr. Baxter replyes I say there is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum And I say still that God acts not in this work without the concurrence of him that is justified which Mr. Baxter grants And this concurrence of man having its instrument In justification of man God acts not without man God thereby doth carry on his work otherwise the Apostle had not onely said that God is a justifier of those that believe in Jesus Rom. 3.26 but also that he justifies the circumcision by faith and the uncircumsion through faith And this act of man is interpretativè the instrument of God but more directly and properly the instrument of man where I say it is of it self unable to raise up man to justification he gives in his answer In which we have First his concession what of it self it is not able to do Secondly his assertion what of it self it can do Thirdly his explication under what notion it doth it His concession is That it is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to justification Mr. Baxters concession as to humble to give faith regenerate c. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any supply for those antedaneous works or whether it be employed in those works at all His assertion is that as to the act of justification His assertion or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse it is able of it self But it is worth our enquiry to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse whether to the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate or to the humble believing and regenerate soul The former are not in a present capacity of him and the latter are already in possession if he can find me an humble believing regenerate man void of all right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse I will confesse that the grant of the new Covenant is of it self able to do what Mr. Baxter sayes I looked that he should have proved that the grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel doth this constitutivè as he useth to speak That it should work an unjustified man up to a justified state but it seems he will have it to do it onely declarative to make it appear that he is already justified which honours is very low and that about which I intend not to raise disputes If I mistake him and that he will say that he means more then a naked declaration I would he would explaine himself and speak out what more it is that he inteds for if he intend more I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction seeing he talkes of conveyance right to them that all know are possessed before-hand of right The same Gospel-grant which works those antecedaneous acts of which he speaks doth together convey right to all those in whom such a work is found It is able to do it of it self as he explaines himself ac signum voluntatis divinae but where is it revealed from God that either the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate shall have right to Christ pardon justification or that the humble believing regenerate want it Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Christ and life in him how doth a man in faith stand in need of a new conveyance of right to him There followes If you should mean that that of it self i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able I answer that is not fitly called disablity or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coefficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualites till the condition were performed This assertion That there is no efficiency in faith but a naked presence to stand by and as it were to look on in the work of justification calls for some proof seeing he well knowes that among all Reformers his adversaries this will passe for so high a Paradox How is Christ a propitiation through faith and how are we still said to be justified by faith If no more then a bare presence is required the presence of other graces is equally required as love meeknesse temperance chastity they have still been confest necessary in justification quoad presentiam though not quoad efficientiam yet Mr. Baxter can I think no where shew that Christs is set forth a propitiation through any one of these graces or that we are justified by love meeknesse temperance c. I shall as soon believe that the presence of the eye is barely required for sight without further efficiency as I shall believe that the bare presence of faith is required and no more for justification and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed intending as he expresseth himself that after the condition is performed a new grant must passe actualy to effect this right I cannot tell when the condition is to accept Christ which is present possession They cannot take Christ for justification but by virtue of this grant and when they have thus taken him and are possest of him must they have a new grant for right to him If I give a begger a gift upon condition that he will come and take it when he hath taken it and is possest of it hath he need of any further grant of right to it I said It is often tendered and justication not alwayes wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principal agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument mentioning instances that he gives and adding neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave replyes I am too shallow to reach the reason of
so understood of a real change as wholly to exclude that which is relative It is meant of that whatsoever which tends to the soules profit It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest If Justification be for our profit or tend at all to our everlasting rest then justification is not here excluded It followes The Scripture meaneth The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie If I take this to be the meaning I must interpret it That the Word did not justifie them for it doth justifie where it is mixt with faith though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word It followes 2. It 's true that the Word did not justifie them but that is consequential onely of the former unprofitablenesse I might as well say that the Word 's not sanctifying is consequential as he may say the Word 's not justifying is onely thus consequential I see no shew of reason that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification and consequentially onely of Justification and if it be consequentially onely proved that the Word did not justifie Them here is a reall and more then a shew of advantage to my cause I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence when the consequence by himself is granted It followes Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions and then you do something When I go about the proof of it I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it he is not pleased to give us in any difference And he ownes that which is usually quoted out of Austin He that made thee without thee will not save thee without thee and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation as sanctification I desire him onely to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession a book newly come to my hands Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon and none have an absolute nor an actual right The Gospel findeth us equal and makes no inequality till we make it our selves But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference and make it in us before it be made by us Who ever went higher in speaking of mans work in his sanctification and higher it is then ever I spake of a mans pardoning himself It is said It is weak arguing to say the Word profiteth not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying you cannot but know the sequel would be denyed Others would think that there is strength in such arguing that it receives efficacy from faith upon that account that it profits where faith is and is unprofitable where faith is not especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification It followes In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the Word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification as in progressive sanctification tell us whether you will exclude I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel as instrumental workers But it followes not as is said that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this for concauses have not influence on each other but on the effect I scarce think that maxime to be of universal truth but be it a truth I say no more then here is asserted for me Justification is the effect and the Word and faith are concauses It yet followes The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul which presupposeth faith and that 's all that the Text saith If any sense can be made of this arguing so far as I understand it then Justification presupposeth not faith which is not Mr. Baxters judgment It followes May not the absence of faith hinder unlesse when present it doth effect And would the Apostle think we have spoke of effectual faith or the efficacy of faith yea would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith if it had been idle in the soul and without all efficacy And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification excluding Justification never came that I know into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer that hath treated of Justification neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way as to say we are justified by faith had faith been there and onely had sate idle The various applications of that Text Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith may teach us not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onely The Apostle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to support by faith in sufferings Heb. 10.38 and Gal. 3.11 to justification by faith and shall we say that in the one it is working and in the other it doth nothing If we do we shall have Paul our adversary who sayes that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith what followes hath been already spoken to The second Text saith he I know not how you mean to make use of unlesse you argue thus The Word worketh effectually onely in believers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you saith he that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent but if he can for disproof of that make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles I shall oppose him to maintain the Justification of Infidels The sequel in the word convey is his own and to that which followes I have already sufficiently spoken I inferred from the former words that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such This in very big terms is denyed and the opposite boldly asserted The Gospel saith he in it self considered without the co-ordinate or subordinate or superior causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it When I stand thus highly charged to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question by reason of the clear evidence of it every man may justly expect full clear and evident Scriptures and reasons beyond all doubt for my conviction but I hear of neither but instead
he saies He speaks not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but c. I think he ought to speak so of it when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification In his sense I suppose it can be no instrument of justification an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument but in this case justification is before-hand wrought and therefore according to the proverb it cannot do that which is done before it comes for the truth of this let Mr. Baxter speak The accepting Christ in this Covenant is true justifying faith if an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justfied pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed and so is indeed justified and the grant of the Covenant is an instrument for justification of a justified person I am demanded Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris vel legis as distinct from justificatio judicis vel per sententiam And I demand whether of these justifications do procede If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis then the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not In case it follow after then it is onely a manifestation or declaration of it of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter And this considered it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks ef the Covenant onely as eyed of God and not applyed to us and then indeed it is no instrument of God whereby he justifies but his rule according to which he justifies Pardon of sin is a relative change yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work and so are instruments of pardon dispositivè as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks as well as declarativè I added in my Treatise Forgivenesse of sin is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.38 but it is to those that believe that are justified faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it And here comes in my second charge mentioned I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification I answer Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists and according to Mr. Baxter farre more seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he sayes not onely of justifying faith but as justifying yet he is no Romanist 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romanists distinction of a first and second justification which first justification Protestants onely allow according to Scripture to be called justification and that there is according to them no ingrediency of any other grace but faith and no merit in faith but all of grace for which he may see Mr. Crandons first parallell Part 2. pag. 215. It followes If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of justification and can this be unlesse it be also said that we made the Gospel then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of donation But how this can follow I think few but himself can see It will onely follow that the Gospel cannot justifie us without us that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli Ser. 15. will follow He that made thee without thee doth not justifie thee without thee It will follow that somewhat is to be done by us without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious Qui ergo fecit te sine te non justificat te sine te and how the second can follow that the Gospel is our instrument of justification I desire to know If Naamans dipping himself seven times in Jordan rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosie will it follow that Jordan was his instrument whereby he cured himself If the Angels moving on the water Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entred will it then follow that it was either the Angels or his instrument that first entred and not rather the instrument of God onely And to his question moved Can this be unlesse we made the Gospel If we should grant that it is our instrument will this follow Can no man use an instrument unlesse he first made it Peter it seems was no fisher but rather a Cutler and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear or else he could not have used it as his instrument Neither followes it that God and we are concauses It would onely follow that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give That of Austin will follow which immediately is added in the place quoted Ergo fecit nescientem justificat volentem tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua He therefore that made thee unwilling doth not justifie thee unwilling yet he doth justifie thee lest it should be thine own righteousnesse It will then follow that in self-denyal renouncing all self-righteousnesse we humbly accept what God of grace doth give After these supposed absurdities we have a list of subtle questions Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny as appears in his words that follow and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2 1 Thess 2.13 before mentioned here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification and by the help of him and light borrowed from his illuminate notions I shall aym somewhat at it to answer his respective to Justification If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God and from faith then God must convey efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification and till I have his answer why should I be so vain as to confute his There followes Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weaknesse as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut fiat potens efficax Quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter Aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium For answer
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
as signum voluntatis divinae being a manifestation of Gods pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner is sufficient So farre I shall willingly grant That which is to be asserted is 1. That this manifestation of Gods pleasure or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed and goes before those graces but now mentioned which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification This is plain The termes on which God will justifie must be understood before men can be brought to accept and come up to them 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made knowne and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the soul in an unjustified condition works to humiliation regeneration faith and by faith to justification 3. This manifestation of Gods pleasure being applyed to a man already humbled regenerate and in faith finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture Though Faith in nature goes before justification as the cause before the effect yet they are in that manner simul tempore that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition that so there should any intervall or time passe for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before to a regenerate believing soul serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition to make good to such a believing son or daughter that their sinnes are forgiven To apply these assertions to our present purpose This manifestation of Gods pleasure Gospel-grant or signum voluntatis divinae or whatsoever else we call it in the first consideration justifies not Going before that which is antecedent to Justification as we see it does it cannot justify In the second consideration it works indeed to justification But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter he will not accept of it for he saies he does not thus speak of it and in this consideration it justifies not without faith but works faith in order to Justification By this man is preached forgivenesse of sins and by him all that believe are justified In the third consideration it justifies not seeing it finds the work done to its hands and onely serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted So that all that can be said of this Gospel-grant donation or conveyance of right so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work is 1. To make known Gods mind on what termes justification may be attained 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it and finally to assure ratify and confirm it I shall the refore close this dispute if I may be allowed so to stile it in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place de justificat mihi pag. 797. octavo Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam Nam quotquot receperunt eum his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri Joan. 1.12 3.33 Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis 1. Docens Patefaciens Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum vel sicut veteres loquntur verbum vocale et visibile For as many as received him to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God John 1.12 and 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension speaking to mens capacity is called a cause instrumental And this instrumentall cause is twofold 1. Teaching Opening Offering and Exibiting the benefits of justification by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts And this is the Word of the Gospel and use of Sacraments or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible 2. Receiving or apprehending 2. Recipiens seu apprehendens quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur ita ut eorum participes reddamur Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem non ulias alias vel qualitates vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis whereby we apply those gifts to our selves which are offered in the Gospel that we may be made partakers of them There is therefore the hand of God as it were delivering and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered And testimonies are both observed and above explained that onely faith sand no other qualities or works in us is the medium of application SECT VI. A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith Christians must get assurance that they do act according to these principles so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles which I might urge respective to all that which is required of a man of Gospel-righteousnesse But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements I shall here onely urge it respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousnesse which is the grace of faith as we see in the Text which is confest to be the grace that receives Christ even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification If this righteousnesse which is our Justification be the righteousnesse of Faith then those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousnesse and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to those that believe those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear yet they come short of righteousnesse for life and salvation Giving assent to all Gospel-truths perhaps upon the principles of their education they may not onely have the repute but also enjoy all outward priviledges of believers yet wanting that work upon their will or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him they yet have not Christ nor life in him and therefore upon this account there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle Especially to see to their faith 2 Cor. 13.5 Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates In which words we see the Apostles exhortation and his reason annext The exhortation calls us to self-examination to a self-tryal an inquisitive experimental tryal The question to be put or thing to be proved or brought to upon
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soverainty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each it's particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his soveraignty doth justifie us Mr. Brs. reply analized In your reply to this passage of mine you 1. Acquit me of any further error then what is found in my method affirming that I agree with you in substantiâ rei 2. You lay down six several distinctions 3. You lay down nine propositions All of which both distinctions and propositions I believe you intended for illustration of the point in debate but your Readers and those neither of the younger nor duller sort complaine of your obscuring of it 4. You fall upon your charge of me and here you charge 1. My expressions with confounding that which was my business as well as I could to distinguish 2. You charge my implications or implyed sense which it seems you far better know then I with triple injustice 1. Against the truth and word of God 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing cutting the conditions of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive my doctrine That which all complain of in your expressions you are pleased to blame me withall in my implications Upon the comming out of your Apologie I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in these words I wish that it may not divert you from better employment and namely your Treatise about the Sacraments to which if you adjoyn as an appendix something by way of reply to Mr. Br. not so as to trouble your self and others as Mr. Br. doth too much with Logicall niceties but to clear and confirm the main matter I think it will be most convenient 2. I am charged as not affording one word of Scripture or reason when yet in those few words recited I think the reader may see as many as in all your distinctions and propositions Lastly and leastly as you term it my charge is of evident injustice to my friend For it is as is said no hard matter to know who I mean in charging him with confounding the distinct parts of Christs mediatorship I am expresly spoke to and charged without injustice for confounding Christs actions with mans faith How truly let the Reader judge And am yet guilty of injustice in charging my implyed friend in my implyed sense with such a crime 5. You excuse your self for your not much troubling me with arguments Giving your reason that you have done it over and over to others Where I would have the Reader to observe that you have other Adversaries besides me in this point and those of the most learned who as else where you say have vouchsafed that condescension as to give in animadversions 2. That we hear none of these learned mens reasons A few words of mine let fall by the bie are fallen upon and elaborate learned Treatises of others lie dormant industriously written on this subject 6. You come in with your ten arguments which it seemes you take to be a number below trouble It would trouble you If I should say your implyed sense is That they are such to which I may without trouble give in an answer 7. You amplifie your tenth argument with a large discourse and all of this before you can reach my words I should trouble the Reader in his purse and patience if I should follow you in all these particulars and indeed I was scarce ever brought so near to a non-plus To speak to all Time will not suffer and to take to some and leave others will expose me to censure Your distinctions should be look'd into and if they had been either proved or explained you had done your Reader a Favour Your first distinction is between Constitutive Justification His distinctions considered or remission by the Gospel-grant or Covenant and Justification by the sentence of the Judge I hope you do not make these two distinct Justifications that so it should be a distribution of a Genus into its species So I think few Readers will own it But if you mean by the former a Justification wrought and in it self perfect and compleat as your word constitutive would seem to imply And by Justification by the sentence of the Judge Justification manifested and declared then I freely yeeld That is Justification in it self perfect and full that renders a man blessed And this your constitutive Justification which you call remission by the Gospel-grant doth Psal 32.1 Commented upon by the Apostle Rom. 4.7 8. Whether the Elect shall have any other justification or this manifested and more fully held out let Christ himself determine At the day when God by him shall judge the world he will pronounce this sentence Come yee blessed of my Father Matth. 25.34 This Justification then by the sentence of the Judge is a manifestation of this blessedness which is in remission and non-imputation of sin Your next distinction is between Constitutive Justification as begun and as continued or consummate And here I doubt not but you may distinguish provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the first as you use to do viz. Faith only and another which is works the condition of the second When David through faith was put into a justified state and after fell into sin there was a necessity of his return in the order established of God You may say if you please that works must now acquit him from this second guilt but this I shall hardly imbrace He sought in his faln condition to have sin by free grace remitted and to be purged with that which Hysopin Ceremoniall purifications did typifie Psal 51.7 A justified state is carried on in a way of obedientiall affiance But faith in Christs blood first and last doth only justifie The Apostle speaks of the falls of the Children of God when he sayes If any man sin 1 John 2.1 and tels us the way to be acquited not any new but the old and first way We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sin And I know no other way of propitiation then through faiths in his blood I know what you say Pref. to your Confes pag. 8. if I number right They are very different questions How we are constituted just or put into a justified state at our conversion How we are sentenced just or justified at Gods Judgment seat You may if you please make them two questions but were I to be Catechized by you I should give you the same answer And I believe Paul was of the same mind when he
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not quâ— operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. qâ—à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purposâ— is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the qâ—estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to
teach the world that the onely justifying act of faith is the accepting of justification as merited by Christs blood or the accepting of Christs righteousnes to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudic'd man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have triall of I can find no commoner cause of their generall delusion and perdition then this very doctrine Answ To this I might have many things to say 1. It is the hard fate Desperate Conclusions inferr'd from right principles if I may say so of Christian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles And yet the way of Christians hath not been either to desert the principles from which they are drawn nor yet to own or defend the inferences or conclusions that are drawn from them The Apostle affirming that the exaltation of Gods glory in not utterly casting of the Nation of the Jewes was eminently seen in their disloyalty and covenant-breaking with him Inference is presently made that covenant-breaking and disloyalty cannot then be blamed If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory why yet am I also judged as a sinner That which advanceth Gods glory cannot be charged as a sin Bat covenant-breaking with God according to the Apostle addes to his glory and therefore it cannot be charged as a sin If answer be made that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident and no thanks to him that breaks covenant but to the goodness of God that brings good out of evill From this inference is made also Let us then do evill that good may come which Conclusion was slanderously charged upon the Apostle Rom. 3. vers 8. The doctrine of Gods free election of some and passing by of others occasioned two dâ—sperate inferences 1. That there is then unrighteousness with God as deserting yea hating his creature without cause Rom. 9.14 2. That God then without reason finds a fault with his creature this being his will who can resist it Ro. 9.19 The wits of some have been indeed busied to put such a comment upon the Apostles words that no such inference as these with any colour or shew of reason can be drawn and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly dissonant from the Text for from the Apostles doctrine these inferences in the judgement of blinded reason and rules held between creature and creature seem directly to follow as evidently appears in the Apostles answer To come nearer to the business in hand the Apostle making it his work to advance Gods free grace in mans justification some feared lest their sin was above the grace of a pardon To satisfie these the Apostle tels them that where sin abounded grace doth super-abound Rom. 5.20 So that the greatness of their sin exalts the free grace and favour of God an inference is presently ready Let us then continue in sin that grace may abound Rom. 6.1 And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to sin as any that you hold out in your objection against this doctrine this very use which you say is now made by wicked ones of this Doctrine generally taught by Protestants was made as is said in the Apostles times by the Gnosticks and others who maintained that it was enough to believe that Christ died for sin though a man liv'd in all wickedness and ungodliness How could this so soon spring in the Church but that carnal ones found some-what that would bear some colour on which they might bottom it as omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate as may be seen verified in the instances mentioned Let not Christian doctrin then be blamed upon the account of such desperate deductions and cursedly wrested inferences As soon as reformation began and this doctrine among others appeared it is well known what from the adversaries it suffered As it was laid to the Reformers charge that they made God the author of sin so that Gibieuf with his black mouth makes Calvin worse then the Manichees so also that they utterly laid aside all care and regard of good works or wayes of godliness and that upon account of their doctrine that faith alone justifies It is well known with what a belly they use to picture Luther as if his work had been alone to drink And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome out of the Revelation to set out what a creature a Lutheran is saith that those that are addicted to their belly for the most part fall to them And their orator Turner in his elogie of Drunkenness applauds the Lutherans with a bene secistis in that they have lest the Catholique Church to betake themselves to that party How full their invectives were against Calvin and Beza and all of their opinion as enemies of all godliness and friends of prophanesse almost all books of popish writers may witnesse Those things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolsecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpose Granatensis in his dedicatory Epistle before his Dux peccatorum having laid this down as a maxime that Holinesse and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion and asserted that there hath been no sect from the beginning of the world if we run through all ages to be compared with Christians for doctrine of concernment to mans Moral conversation he enters comparison first with Heathenism then with Turcisme then with Judaisme after Christs comming and lastly takes notice of the lives of Hereticks in the primitive times of the Manichees out of Austin Of the Gnosticks out of Epiphanius Of the Carpocratians out of Austin then he fals upon his own times and saies The Heretiques of our own times are no more holy They that have fetch'd back the errors of faith of former Heretiques from hell are also diligent followers of their practices what holiness of life saith he is to be expected from the Lutherans that with their speciall faith have set open a door to all impiety and the wicked practices of the Calvinists are better known saith he then we desire and thereupon tels us two tales first that some that neighbour upon Geneva being demanded why they did not reject the Catholique and receive Genevas Gospel answerd That was not to be wondered at for said they the words and books of Calvinists stuff'd with lies and fraud are carried further then the narrative of their wickedness But to us say they that go every week to their Market it is well known to be a kingdome of hellish confusion and therefore their Gospell doth not take with us His next is of a certain Minister of theirs who a few years before went into Hungary petitioned a Bashaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Gospel to the Christians that lived among the Turks under tribute and to perswade the said Bashaw to grant his Petition he began with many reasons
to tell him that the Religion of the Calvinists was most near to that of Mahomet And having ended his request the said Bashaw answered I see that you Calvinists and we are like to be shortly one Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us you willl keep your selves to wine and be drunk with it Charges of this nature Lutherans and Calvinists were wont still to hear but divine providence through grace hath so ordered that these Calumnies as with a beam of the Sun have been dispelled The holy lives of those that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant reall comfutation Not to look beyond the seas where we might be furnished with severall instances let Jewel Grindall Pilkington Raynolds Fulk Whitaker Perkins Fox Greenewood Dod Hilderson Pemble Ball and many others with their Followers witnesse In so much that by degrees shame hath caused them to forbear this Language And as for those who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this supposed danger as Mountague and his followers as may be seen in his Gagg and Appeal whether their lives and zeal for the Gospel did at all outstrip those already mentioned whose supposed errors in doctrine they went about to correct I leave to all of impartiall judgement to witness How great a trouble is it then to have this by a man of your name and reputation now revived For that experience of yours of which we have already heard and you further enlarge The assertion that faith in Christ's blood is the only justifying act acquit from danger in your affirming that you never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinn'd their worst they still think to be saved because they believe and what is their believing why they believe that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation from Christ's death and Gods mercy To this I answer Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you yet here I may say my experience hath been of a longer standing then yours yet I can say it answers not that which you here mention When I have to deal with such that you name if they look out of themselves at all it is usually to Gods mercy He is say they a mercifull God and at what time soever a sinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart he is ready to receive and so relying on Gods mercy they will take their time for their return Which is answered also as is evident in the experience of others Read Practical Treatises and publish'd Sermons and see whether this plea be not commonly spoken to Ordinarily their answer is that their good doings their Prayers and Repentance must save them Few comparatively will have Christ in their mouths till he be put into their heads And if they hit upon faith as sometimes they will they yet know not how to terminate it on Christ's blood It is only a good belief that God will not deal so with them Such a faith the Plain mans path-way to heaven out of much experience of such mens answers doth notably decipher It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths viz. He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I For I accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore I am justified But in case any shall thus reason you say you are not able to answer and I shall not presume to be your teacher But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker and tell such a disputant that it is not every thing that bears the name of faith that is an acceptation of Christ to justification You may acquaint him that there is a true and sincere faith and that there is a false and counterfeit faith and that it is not enough for justification to say that a man hath faith but soundly and sincerely to believe If he say that his faith is not dissembled but sincere put him upon that which Mr. Gataker sayes is Saint James his way of tryall If he will have faith to justifie his person let works then justifie his faith There is life in that faith that takes Christ's blood for justification and that faith that hath life to take hath life also to work Where a receiving or taking faith is there Christ is and where Christ is the soul can do all things through Christ that strengthens So thaâ— if the man be such as you speak his faith is cast at the first sight and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit and is no medium to justification He may talk that Christ is his but it is clear that it is on a crackt title and his faith being no better then you say had he all the Logick in the world here he must be non pluss'd And here I would willingly learn how you will convince such a man of whom you here speak upon your own principles If he shall argue He that hath the onely justifying act of faith is justified but that have I for I take Christ as my Saviour and Soveraign Lord Ergo. Seeing there are many that profess to take Christ for a Lord as well as a Saviour that must never enter into the kingdome of heaven Mat. 7.21 If they do not spit at Christ and defie him they perswade themselves that they serve him A service of Jesus Christ with their own most favourable and easie comment upon it they doubt not will save them And I know no viler persons in the world then those that say that they love and serve Christ with all their heart and that their good works and serving of God must keep them from hell and damnation As I once heard a man stark drunk on a Lords-day profess that fall back fall edge he would never leave serving God whilst he lived These if they may be believed have as good an heart to God as he that is most precise in all the world And if they be wanting in that acuteness of Logick that you before mention they may be wel holpen out of your principles which they may find anon thus to reason He that fals short of the precepts of the Law and requisites in the Gospel may yet be justified and saved if he answers to the conditions of the Gospel-covenant But thus do I although I come not is to the precepts of the Law not to what is required in the Gospel yet I answer to the conditions of it for according to you these come short both of the commands of the Law and the precepts of the Gospell Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Gospell yet they hope they do that which will save them They have their faults they confess and who say they is free Few dayes pass over their heads but they say God
sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow theâ—efore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only Râ—le of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as thâ— Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when thâ— sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muâ—t now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who
justification and consequently with him Faith is the instrument So also Determinat 37. pag. 165. (g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris Quia constat eo modo justificari homines quo gloria divina maximè illustretur honor salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt We attribute saith he this instrumentall power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator rather then to any other act of sinning man because it is manifest that men are justified that way by which the glory of God may be most illustrated and the honour of our salvation given to God alone But they that affirm that man is justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of man's savation in justification alone to God but ascribe some part unto themselves You are highly displeased with all those that will have no other condition of our justification at the day of judgement then affiance in Christ's righteousness If you allow faith to begin it yet you will have works at any hand to perfect it Here he is as full as anywhere against you Quoting two passages out of Hilary Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon he thus expresseth himself (h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere sed non solo Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius quando dicit Sola fides justificat Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt sed non consummationem Atille longè aliter justum fides consummat Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith Faith alone justifies They attribute saith he the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation But Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion That faith in Christ as giving himself in Satisfaction for us is alone the justifying act And we shall hear how confident you are that all antiquity is against it as against the instrumentality of faith in justification and the interest of works as consummate in judgement If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat You shall see him as fully against you as Chemnitius Amesius Prideaux Bernard Anselmus or any other that you can look upon as your greatest adversaries My third argument to assert this position laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript he there makes his first which I saw not till I was come hither else I might have made other use of it And see how he expresses himself pag. 164. (i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem Vnde Aquinas In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens Deinde in mandatis comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores c. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore gratuitâ peccati remissione per propter Mediatorem in quas dum fides respicit peccator fiduciam concipit in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur Now as to that speciall proper object at which faith looks in that very instant in which it receives justification from God it is certain that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historicall narrative of creation or providence Whence Aquinas In the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon but that God be thought upon pardoning sin And in the commands and threats of the Law this speciall object is much less found For this consideration begets nothing else but terrors c. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin by and for the mediatour onely remain upon which whil'st faith looks the sinner conceives hope relies upon this mediator offered to him yields himself to divine mercy for justification and thereby attains the benefit of justification And this he backs with three Arguments You tell me Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission Giving in your reasons To which in their due place I have spoke And you may see Davenant as full against you here as any where ca. 23. de Justit habit p. 317. (k) Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis sed per modum imputationis Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith which applies to us the righteousness of Christ not that it should be made ours way of infusion or inhesion but by way of imputation And I wonder saith he that Papists cannot understand how the righteousness of Christ is applied to us by faith who think that they understand how by the Popes indulgencies the merits of Christs and the Saints are applied to the quick and dead As also chap. 28. p. 371. (l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur There is nothing more usual then to ascribe that to the cause applying which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed Therefore because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us that is attributed to faith that indeed is due to Christ Where we plainly see that according to him Faith applies the righteousness of Christ and that it is an applying cause and what cause except instrumentall I cannot imagine Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose But this is enough to let us see that there is not any so fair and full accord between you And if I should be put to name two
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
an enemy of the Churches peace that dissents in judgement from the Church in some particulars as in ages past it was or he that confessedly dissents from the Church whereof he is and where he lives and as that present it stands I think here the determination is easie Let us enquire whether of these dissents will work more heart-broyles quarrels contentions envyings mutuall oppositions and needless disputes and let that be agreed upon as well it may to bear the blame If all must be tyed up to keep peace and be at one with the Church as to all particular tenents in the revolution of all these ages they are then tyed to know and their Pastors are bound to teach what in all successive ages hath been the Churches opinion But this were a great burden for Pastors and far more intolerable to be put upon the people If a man may be secure in this that he goeth not against truth I think he need not trouble himself as to ages past in the matter of peace Had you produced the vote of Antiquity as a probable inducement to perswade that you had truth according to Scripture and reason on your part it had been somewhat such appeals to humane Authority after Divine Testimony produced is ordinary but to dissent from the Church in which a man lives and of which he is to avoid the danger of a breach of peace with the Church that sometimes was is such a way of peace that I never yet knew troden or taken 2. Whether Antiquity be as cleer for you as the Church in present is for me The latter you freely grant but the former will I think hardly be yeelded notwithstanding what you say Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 yeers therefore I am suspected as a novelist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the interest of mans obedience in his justification as continued and consummate in judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Clem. Alexand Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alaxandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any councill were of your mind in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at least my supine negligence in Reading and my very faulty Memory in retaining their words How fully you have proved the unfoundness either of the word or opinion in question others must judge But whether the novelty be so notorious as you speak is to be enquired into and in order to that I shall request you Some things propounded to the Readers consideration To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noyse and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers If the Church of Rome may be believed all Antiquity is theirs Hoping to put that cheat upon us as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel Ad patres si quando licebit accedere confectum est praelium Tam sunt omnes nostri quam Gregorius 13. Papa filiorum ecclesiae amantissimus Pater Testes fenestrae omnes res reculae It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side If we might but appeale to the Fathers saith Campian the controversie were ended They are all as fully ours saith he as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church As the windowes in the Church all other things and thinglings to take the liberty to coyne English as he doth Latine are their witnesses So all the Fathers also that the truth is with them I will say no more but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers but as an empty sound a voice and nothing more 2. That some of untainted integrity and of no lesse ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity in these controversies have asserted the full contrary to that which you here with so much confidence deliver Chemnitius was a man differing from you in every piece of this doctrine in which you dissent from me and particularly your adversary in all these three poynts in which you make this appeal to former ages He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ to be the speciall object of Justifying Faith and against your distinction of Justification begun by Faith alone and consummate by works yea there is not a man that ever wrote that appears more your adversary in this poynt then he being judged the most learned grave and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches wherewith you are most displeased in this Controversie yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent 144. After a List of authorities brought by him his close is worth observation (a) Haec pauca ideo annotavi ut ostenderem doctrinam nostram de Justificatione habere testimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus sed in seriis exercitiis poenitentiae fidei quando conscientia in tentationibus cum suâ indignitate vel coram ipso judicio Dei vel in agone mortis luctatur Hoc enim solo modo rectissimè intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione sicut in Scripturâ traditur Quaeres put concerning this Appeale These few saith he I have noted that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification is attested by all the Godly of all ages that have lived in all times and that not in their Rhetoricall declamations or vaine disputes but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation or with their own unworthinesse or before the Tribunal of God or in the Agony of death For this way saith he the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture can alone rightly be understood What can be now more contrary then his Testimony and yours how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another That which you say is a notorious novelty he saith hath the attestation of all antiquity who shall he now believe that hath not nor cannot search the Authors themselves that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years 3. I would have you to take into serious consideration these following Quaeres 1. Whether the doctrine of those that bore the name and outward face of the Church was uniforme through out that whole series of time that you take in in you◠challenge Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas and the following ages the doctrine concerning Justification in the Latine Church was the same as in the daies
of Tertullian Cyprian and Austine If so then the doctrine of merit in the highest way as it is now taught in the Châ—â—â—â— of Rome was delivered by the Fathers the oppositioâ—◠〈◊〉 is as notorious a novelty as this of the instrumen◠〈◊〉 â—f Faith or justifying act by you is pretended How high Aquinas is for merit as also his followers all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see And in case in this time a change intervened and a new way be introduced you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion even Lombard himself was not the same man as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him 2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome since that time that closeth up your account viz. ann 1400. to this day As I take it their doctrine is substantially the same now as it was in Aquinas his age and some time before him The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing that their Doctors had of severall ages held And though they put upon it their sanction yet they made no sensible variation as they expresly declare themselves Sess 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome rigidly adheres to it It being therefore the same for 1400. years time as the most Antient Fathers taught yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered as afterwards you take the boldnesse to assert and the same now as it was then The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same as Christ and his Apostles left it Being faithfully kept by Fathers Schoolemen determined by the Council of Trent now maintained by Jesuites their adhaerents This is too clearly by you implied If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt see how much you dissent from your learned friend Mr. Gataker where he tells you in his second letter of that great difference that is between us and the Papists in the Dâ—ctrine of Justification As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of Justification which you speak as you say being so informed and I believe you have heard as much For many years before his death I heard it from an eminent hand and acquainted Mr. Ball with it who with much â—xpression of trouble of Spirit that it should be so voyced disclamed if and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith not then published and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 â—nt hath given to the world sufficient testimony agains◠〈◊〉 â—his bâ—uit perhaps gave occasion to that which Mr. Cranâ—â— â—nconsidâ—rately vented and you have so praise-worthily vindicated and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge as being an ear witnesse should be added 3. Whether the Fathers that you mention and others their contemporaries that you do not name were so distinct as might be desired in and about the word Justification and other words of concernment touching this controversie Though as to the thing it self they speak according to the Scriptures when thâ—y speak of Justification Reconcilliation Remission yet so farr as I have read find in the observation of others they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together which you declare your self at least to dislike in others making it not verbum forense as you yeeld it is but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteousnesse whereby we are not pronounced and acquitted as just upon the merit of Christ which otherwise they orthodoxly own but habituâ—lly so and therefore so denominated Being said to be Justified because of unjust we are made just which is the work of Sanctification and implies a reall and not a relative change such as is found in Justification And if some termes of theirs need amendment upon further inquiry into this doctrine then why not others 4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith or Faith in Christ quà Lord not to be the justifying act or the thing it self that you intend in that so large challenge of yours If it be the want of the words only instrument or quà Lord that you mention your charge is very low upon severall accounts 1. Words of art of this nature are seldome found in the Fathers There are few discourses in them about causes whether Efficient Finall Materiall Formall Instrumentall neither are there any so exact logicall distinctions under what notion they take that which they are upon in their writings Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen and little use made of them as I think before Lombards daies Protestant writers finding them in the Church are necessitated to make use of them as well that their adversaries may understand them as with their own weapons to deal with them And the Schoolemen having found another instrument in Justification viz. Baptism as appears â—y the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 6. Cap. 7. it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all that these do not so use it as it ought according to Scriptures 2. You would be I doubt not as much wanting in making proofe of the use of your own termes among the Fathers as your adversaries of theirs we may find the word instrument and the restrictive particle quà in your twenty six Fathers ascribed to Faith in Justification as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non or as I think your conditio cum quâ We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua and fides quà which you make the generall cheat as often as you can find your distinctions already examined which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together When you challenge the words of others as novel it lies upon you to assert the antiquity of your own If it be the thing it self that you challenge as not found in any Authors in this Compasse of time I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation as B. Jewell was in the defence of his that he published at Pauls Cross I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith and the whole of it that the Protestant Churches make the instrumentall work and that they assigne the same specificall object of Faith in the work of Justification as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted 5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers by you mentioned have purposely treated upon particulary spoken to this doctrine of Justification and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled that they that do not know it may turn and read it I have a considerable part of those that you mention though some
of them I confess I have not seen as Polycarp Tatianus Macarius Athenagoras Vigilius as I have severall others that you mention not and I would fayne see what they have either for or against the Protestant belief Those that have not treated at all on this subject as in some of them that you name I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned or have spoken upon it only be the by are as much as nothing their names might as well have been spared as mentioned Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism in naming some of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism when they have not at all spoken to it and their contemporaries have asserted it 6. Whether the present Church of this age in which we live taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years since the Romish yoke hath been cast off be not as considerable and as much to be heeded in this controversie as all of those in your list mentioned if you should put in yet more to encrease so far as names could do it both weight and number They were subject to error and humane frailty as well as the Church that is and of late was They were not able to decide their own Controversies but laboured as well as we under contentions and divisions they were seldome unanimous but often at difference not only with others but themselves Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage 1. Being far above yours in number go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compasse of time and we shall find your List of names far exceeded 2. They have fully debated the cause and in publick Assemblies determined it in Confessions openly professed it Considered of and answered arguments against it turning over every stone to find out the truth in it so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned and Nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account nor so meet Judges in the point of Grace and Freewill having no adversary and therefore spake more loosly as Austin Prosper Fulgentius and those that followed who were by the adversary put upon the study of it Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur The greatest Doctors at some times saith Dr. Fr. White Treat of the Sabb. p. 89. before Errors and Heresies are openly defended are not neither can be so circumspect in their writing as to avoid all forms and expressions all sentences and propositions all and every tenet which in after times may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth Quoting Austin de Praed Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works which before this heresie arose had not need to busie themselves in the answer of this difficult question which doubtless they had done if they had been put to deal with such adversaries This we may fitly apply to this point of justification we are beholding the opposites of it for a more industrious fifting of it and more cleer light in it Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection had there been none in that age that had denyed it Hâ—d not Popish School-men perverted the doctrine of justification Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal and fervor of Spirit in it And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point had they seen it as we have done perverted and abused 7. If Fathers and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification How is it probable that any singularly verst in Antiquity so as to have few parallels and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification but averse from it and siding with the adversary should own the instrumentality of faith and argue for it if Antiquity were so averse from it he that takes it up is sure either ignorant in Antiquity or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party But such there have been that can neither be challenged as ignorant nor suspected for partiall engagement that yet assert the instrumentality of faith witness Bp. Montague In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective and detected by Bp. Carleton Dr. Featley and others yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication let not onely his adversaries speak that have appeared against him but Sanct. Clara our adversary who Problem 26. quotes Montagues Appeal Chap. 6. to prove the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent agreeable as he sayes with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent Now that this great Antiquary and friend of our adversaries appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification see his Appeal cap. 9. part 2. putting it into his title that God doth justifie originally and faith instrumentall and reasoneth for it in the Chapter it self These things being prâ—mised as to the first concerning the Instrumentality of Faith Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith I thus argue They that are for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all whatsoever else in man they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all in man except faith in this work Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification Here the Proposition is first to be proved and then the Assumption The Proposition I â—hus prove To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith which is not found in any other grace this none can deny and you confess pag. 96. of your Confession Conclus 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work distinct from other graces but to be an instrument in this work This is cleer This peculiar work or office of faith must be either to be an instrument in this work or else a Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non or else somewhat more noble then all of these as the formal meritorious cause c. But it s peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification Though they be all present together saith our Book of homilies yet they do not justifie together pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies saith Davenant he infuses inhaerent grace which yet he denies to be any cause but an Appendix to our justification de Justit habit cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine sayes That Protestants agree in this
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris
sed in advocati nostri allegatione confidamus And this I am sure is within Christs Priestly and not his Kingly office That of Bernard also super Cantic Sâ—ct 23. Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium cui soli peccavi Sect. 23. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deest usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini quoniam Misericordiâ affluunt nec desunt foramina per quae affluant Memor abor justitiae tuae solius ipsa enim est mea nempe factus es mihi tu Justitia à Deo Nunquid mihi verendum est ne non una ambobus sufficiat Non est pallium breve quod secundum prophetam non potest operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum te pariter me apperiet larga aeterna justitia That of Austine lib. 3. de Trinit Cap. 20. Fides ad beatitudinem necessaria in Christo definita est qâ—i in carne resurrexit à mortuis non enim nisi per illum liberabitur quisquam à Diaboli dominatu per remissionem peccatorum And Nyssenus lib. de vita Mosis Caput eorum quae in professione Christiana credimus est firmâ rectaque fide in passionem illius respicere qui pro nobis passus est That passage which Chemnitius quotes out of the life of Bernard is observeable Being at the poynt of death and in an extasie of Spirit judging himself to be before Gods tribunall and Sathan over against him present charging him with wicked accusations and the Man of God was to speak for himself not at all afraid or troubled he said Fateor non sum dignus ego nec propriis possum meritis regnum obtinere coelorum Caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens dominus meus haereditate scilicet patris merito passionis altero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat Ex cujus dono jure illud mihi vendicans non confundor Ita hoc verbo confusus est inimicus c. The same Author tels us of an exhortation of Anselme to a dying Brother set out as a directory for the visit of the sick ready to give up the Ghost which is almost wholly spent in leading the dying person to the death of Christ He concludes Age ergo dum in te est anima tua ei semper gratias in hac sola morte totam fiduciam tuam constitue Huic morti te totum committes hac morte te totum contâ—ge eique te totum evolve Et si dominus te voluerit judicare dic Domine Domini mortem nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me te judicium tuum aliter tecum non contendo si dixerit quod merueris damnationem dic Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque dignissimae passionis meritum affero pro merito quod ego habere debuissem heu non habeo Many more passages may be found in Chemnitius out of Anselme Gerson Bernard and others purposely brought to make this good that the speciall promises of mercy in Christ through his blood is the speciall object of Faith in Justification largely disclaming any act of Faith as terminated on any other object in the word to Justifie I shall conclude with that which was quoted before by Davenant out of Thomas Aquinas In ipsa Justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli Sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens In this work it self of the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought up but that God be thought on pardoning sin As for your last of the interest in mans obedience in Justification as continued and consummate in judgment In case you could bring forth the distinction out of the Fathers and make it appear that thy exclude all in man except Faith in Justification begun but take in works in Justification compleat and consummate you had done somewhat But to put your adversaries upon it to prove that the Fathers overthrow this distinction when you do not shew that they any where assert it is scarce equall dealing yet you cannot here go away cleare What judge you of the passages but now quoted If Bernard had been of your judgement when he took himself to be before Gods tribunal he would not have contented himself alone with the sufferings of Christ but must have put himself upon it to have brought out a list as large as the Pharisees of his works of obedience Neither would Anselme in his Directory have taught Prelates and other Ministers to have led persons at the point of death alone to the death of Christ and nothing else What say you to that of Clemens Alexand. Stromat 7 quoted by Eckhardus pag. 391. Per fidem solummodo efficitur fidelis perfectus And that of Hilary quoted by Davenant de Justitia habit cap. 29 pag. 377 having urged these words out of Canon 8. in Matth. pag. 164. A christo remissum est quod lex laxure non poterat fides enim sola justificat he addes another quotation out of lib. 20. de Trinitate Justum fides consummat secundum quod dictum est credidit Abraham deo reputatum est ei ad justitiam and then Comments himself upon both these quotations Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith faith alone justifies for they attribute the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation but Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just So that your Reader may see that Hilary in Davenants judgement is full against you And doubtless he will still judge it matter of wonder that in the close of your Century of witnesses you say that Davenant most fully of all speaks your thoughts If he agree with you no man no not Mr. Crandon himself I think dissents from you I confess that I come neerer to you than he as in words he expresses himself as you may see at large de Justit habit cap. 30. pag. 397 398. and yet I cannot be brought to agree with you And seeing I am brought in by you in your confession pag. 456. as the first man after you Century of witnesses is ended as voting with you in these words Mr. Bl. in his late Treatise of the Covenant is so full in asserting the conditionality of repentance and obedience that he spends whole Chapters upon it and answers the objections of the Antinomians against it cap. 14. and 15 and 6 7 8. I am put to it to let the Reader know how I explain my self seeing you do it not By which it will appear that nothing that I have said in any of those Chapters by you quoted notwithstanding I assert such conditionality as you mention will serve at all to strengthen your opinion for the interest of works in justification yet for ought I know they may be as
Page 111 Over much rigour in admission to Baptisme hinders the progress of the Gospell Page 112 The admission of some to Baptisme in prudence may be delayed Page 113 Papists expect not grace for but a convenient disposition to grace in the person to be Baptized Page 111 The restraint of right to Baptisme a breach in the Church of Christ Page 181 Baptisme a leading Church-privilege Page 161 In what sense Baptisme works what it figures Page 383 Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The Bloud and Spirit of Christ are not alwayes applyed in it Page 381 Dangers attending the restraint of Baptisme to the regenerate Page 551 Baptized A man unbaptized is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page 144 The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid. Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were alwayes answered with inherent grace Page 149 Vpon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page 160 c. Believers A title in Scripture not proper to the justifyed Believing What ordinarily meant by believing in the History of the Acts. Page 177 The distinction of believing Christ and believing in Christ groundless ibid. Bloud Faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 766 This assertion quit from danger Page 582 Bloud and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 C. Call AN outward call asserted Page 169 Calvin Vindicated Page 118. 550 Catholick And universall in Authors use of them distinguished Page 155 Chemnitins His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page 490 See Antiquity Christ The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 Whether the Covenant of works be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Faith in his bloud onely justifies Page 566 Faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page 562 Interest in him interests us in all other privileges Page 458 Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not of the Species of Christ onely Page 459 The healing of our nature and the removall of our guilt is his work Page 366 Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted it 's instrumentality in justification cannot be denyed Page 441 Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448. 449 Christians Vnregenerates are reall and not equivocall members of visible Churches Page 153 Humane authority vouched for it ibid. c. Christian a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page 149 Church-Membership What gives right to it Page 201 102 Circumcision How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions for clearing of the truth Page 24 Circumcision and Baptisme engaged to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The right of Circumcision implyed the propagation of corruption Page 368 Circumcision was no earnall badge Page 425 Cloud Whether two or onely one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 No ordinary one but supernaturall Page 522 The motion of it guided by an Angell ibid. The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib. The use of it twofold As Israels guide Page 522 As Israels guard ibid. It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Communicants The Lords Supper must be administred for their edification Page 199 Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448 Conclusions Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page 579 Condition The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the essence and being of Baptisme Page 143 44 The Authors meaning cleered Page 145 In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page 171 Actuall existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page 462 One and the same thing is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page 632 Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptisme Page 528 Perfects what Baptisme begins ibid. The matter of it Page 529 The form Page 529 The fruit Minister Ceremonies at consecration at administration Page 529 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 530 The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of it Page 530 The ancient use of it degenerated Page 531 Consecration Respects not elements but participants Page 58 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium or Concionatorium ibid. Contradiction The Author acquit from any Page 447 Conversion The Lords Supper with the word as an Appendant to it may be serviceable towards Conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 201 c. Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a Converting Ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page 217 Covenant Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Keeping Covenant failing in Covenant and forfeiture of it to be distinguished Page 392 The Covenant falling Sacraments annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Where God denies his Covenant there the seal must not be granted Page 20 The Covenant people of God the adaequate subject of Sacraments Page 74 All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid. Interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page 79 The word Covenant asserted ibid. The thing it self asserted Page 80 in the essentials of it Page 80 81 in the solemnities Page 81 Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page 82 Covenant and seal are commensurate Page 120 Covenant outward and inward This distinction examined Page 83 The Author vindicated in it Page 124 The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page 83 c. To it belongs the definition of a Covenant ibid. It usually bears the name in Scripture Page 84 Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant Page 86 Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page 115 Covenant God Gods Covenant with his people not equivocall Page 80 Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page 128 Covenant of works Passe between God and man in an immediate way without any reference to Christ as Mediatour Page 10 11 Whether this Covenant be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Covenant of Grace Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page 414 Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page 641 643 It requires and accepts sincerity Page 637 Arguments evincing it vindicated Page 639 Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page 645 Covenant absolute Conditionall Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page 626 Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Covenant Old and New Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
though the act of Justification do not work it 6. You say Faith can have no physicall causation or efficiency in Justification seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part c. 7. You say The legall formall interest or conducibility of faith towards Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense c. I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned 8. You say Scripture doth not say that you can find that faith justifies but that we are justified by faith and therefore you say you use the latter phrase rather then the former Ans This sure comes to fill up or make a number To say that we are justified by faith and not that faith justifies is a distinction without a difference We have warmth by Clothes but Clothes do not warm u◠Faith hath no lesse efficiency in Justification then in miraculous cures and yet in them faith made whole 9. You say Though ex parte Christi our severall changes proceed from his severall benefits and parts of his office exercised for us Yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one intire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the condition of our interest in Christ and his severall ben fits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the severall distinct respects that faith hath to its object c. Answ It is well that this is confessed on the part of Christ And I think you cannot shew why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship and make them known to us likewise That we should be taught in our Catechism which is so honoured with your approbation That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet in revealing to us by his word and Spirit the will of God for our Salvation That he executeth the office of a Priest in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfie divine Justice and reconcile us to God and in making continuall intercession for us That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself in ruling and defending us if our faith is not to observe which way these various priviledges accrue unto us Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them if we may not distinctly consider them Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing I think it may be proved that the Saints faith hath thus distinctly acted In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ in consideration of his soveraignty As Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 20.6 O Lord God of our Fathers art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen and in thy hands is there not power and might So that none is able to withstand thee c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself So foolish was I and ignorant I was as a beast before thee and presently addresses himself to God Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsell and bring me unto glory Psal 73.22 24. Under the burthen of sin to look to be clensed and purged To what else did the sacrifices tend and why else did David make his addresse Wash me thoroughly from my sin Deliver me from blood-guiltinesse Here I must lay down certain propositions in a more full way to explicate my self Propositions tending to explain the Authors meaning 1. That these severall functions of Christ must be distinguished but may not be divided He that is one is all Christ a Priest doth rule Christ a King doth merit and teach Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule But as a Priest he doth not rule as a King he doth not merit he is still one in all of these functions but acts under a distinct notion 2. There is a necessity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office to bring men into a Justified state and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification There must be light to lead men to Christ power to subdue men unto him as well as a price paid to reconcile them When the price of our redemtion is paid by Christ and not published it is like the hid treasure by which no man hath advantage Yea were it made known and by faith applied and brought home our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevaile against us Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Sathan When his right determines as it is with many unjust possessors he will yet keep his hold 3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship It yeelds to his soveraignty is guided by his counsell and rests in his attonement So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office at his Prophetick office as well as at his Priestly office but not as it justifies Quà teaching it looks upon him as a Prophet and learns Quà ruling it looks upon him as a King and submits to him Quà sacrificing and making atonement it looks upon him as a Priest and rests there for acquitall and discharge Where the Gospel distinguishes our faith is distinctly to act and look As to the charge laid against me I shall say little I had rather speak for truth then for my self You tell me that my expressions confound Christ and his actions with mans faith in our Justification or these two questions by what we are Justified ex parte Christi and by what we are Justified ex parte nostri For answer I only leave it to the Readers eyes whether I do not mention our faith as distinct from the blood of Christ in the words by you recited And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri The implyed sense which you accuse I shall further consider in some expresse reasons Now for your arguments we have ten in number and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question Your first concludes That Christ is not received as Christ Mr. Brs. Arguments examined if not as Lord-Redeemer which is a new phrase which I remember not that I have read before I read this Apology For Answer I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eys Redemption not Dominion Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gopel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed Your third concludes That to save from the power of sin is as true a part of a Saviours office as to save from the guilt which is not at all
that good work are not necessary to Salvation but onely by a necessity of presence lib. 4. de justit cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants then acknowledge and he intends justification as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand Here then is nothing peculiar to faith to be meerly conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non Nâ—ither can we ascribe any more noble causality as to be a formall or meritorious cause as needs not to be proved The asserting of justification by faith therefore denotes that which we make an instrument in justification Now that the Antients assert that we are justified alone by faith putting in that exclusive particle that Papists are wont to say is not in Scriptures nor Fathers may be made good 1. By manifold authorities asserting it 2. By multitude of quotations Our Book of Homilies having quoted severall Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone addes And after this-wise to be justified onely by this true and lively faith in Christ speaketh all the old and Antient Authors both Greek and Latine Ser. of Salvation par 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word onely into the Text in Rom. 3.28 Fulk replies You were best to charge all the Antient Fathers which use this term of whom we have received it to be Foysters and excluders of the Sacraments and good works The particle alone by faith in the article of justification was not first devised by us saith Chemnitius but was alwayes used with great consent in all Antiquity as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate which sentences of the Fathers saith he are gathered by Robert Barnes Aepinus Bullinger Otho Corberus c. Loc. de justif pag. 772. Octavo And Chamier Panstrat Cathol Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture that faith alone justifieth concludes so the Scripture is cleer with us The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me before I examine the exceptions of adversaries The induction of quotations yet remaines and I had it in my thoughts to have set down the words themselves which for the most part are very express but I find that that would be tedious to my self and wearisome to the Reader and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not I shall content my self therefore to poynt out the Authors quoting them and the places quoted Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon 45. if it be Ambroses is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned who sayes that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle onely fifteen times By Eckhardus Compend Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato Hilary lib 6. de Trinit Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28 Chamier ibid. Davenant and Prideaux lect 5. Hieron in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus and Chamier ibid. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side lege naturae is quoted by Chamier Eckhardus Fulk Davenant de Justit habit cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil 51. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier Davenant ibid. Nazianzen Orat. 22.26 is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes 2. is quoted by Eckhardus as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist 27. is quoted by Chamier Eckhardut Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Victor Mar. lib. 3. in Gens is quoted by Eckhard Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper Aquitan Epigram 9. are quoted by Chamier Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk Beda in Psal 77. pag. 71. by Davenant and Bp Vsher de statu success Eccles cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss Ordinaria in Epist Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos Symboli Epiphanius in Ancor Phylast in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres lib. 4. Haeres 5. Maxentius de fide are quoted by Eckhardus And because Papists say that Austin uses not this exclusive particle onely therefore Chemnitius tells us that it is used by him in Serm. Quadrages as also in his exposition of these words Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan Contra duas Epistol Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini Chamier addes In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest 76. Exposit in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony that I have mentioned under his name addes we may then truly say with Erasmus that this word sole which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther is reverently read and heard in the Fathers So that we see a peculiar interest that faith hath in justification which belongs to no other grace And therefore it is no wonder that you who forsake all the reformed Churches that unanimously make it an instrument in justification are at such a stand as you are in Conclus 29. and 30. of your Confession what office in justification to assign to it you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality in this work between saith and obedience which is no marvail seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference and Faiths peculiar office which is the instrumentall interesting us in Christ by way of acceptation or apprehension as Isychius in the place quoted saith Sola fide apprehenditur non ex operibus The grace viz. of justification is apprehended by faith and not by works which is as plain a testimony as may be for the instrumentality of this grace Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies Objecting that the Antients used that particle sole otherwise then we do and returns his answer 1. That they use the word sole or alone to exclude all other sects intending no more but that it is alone the Christian Faith and not the Jewish or Turkish that leads to Justification and Salvation And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega Pag. 191. with no other approbation but that it is sometimes true and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it making it appear that when the Fathers speak of the application apprehension or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith they still