Confession of His Faith
The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A76156.0001.001
Project Note
This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.
This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.
Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.
However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.
This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.
Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org
RICH: BAXTER'S Confesssion of his Faith, Especially concerning the Interest of Repentance and sincere Obedience to CHRIST, in our JUSTIFICATION & SALVATION.
Written for the satisfaction of the misinformed, the conviction of Calumniators, and the Explication and Vindication of some weighty TRUTHS.
1 TIM. 4. 8.
REV. 22. 14.
LONDON, Printed by R. W. for Tho. Underhil, and Fra. Tyton, and are to be sold at the Anchor and Bible in Paul's Church-yard, and at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet. 165 • .
Greg. Nazianzens Direction to his Flock, what a Pastor to choose when he was gone.
Hoc unum requiro: Ut ex eorum numero sit, qui aliis invidiae sunt; non miserationi: qui non in omnibus rebus, cunctis obsequuntur, sed qui in quibusdam etiam, ob Recti studium, in hominum offensionem incurrunt. Alterum enim in praesens jucundissimum est: alterum in posterum utilissimum.
A Theme for Calumniators.
Council. Arelatens. prim. Can. 14.
De his qui falso accusant fratres suos, Placuit, eos us{que} ad exitum non Communicare: sed falsum testem, juxta Scripturam, impunitum non licere esse.
The Preface to the Readers; Especially my Reverend Brethren of the Ministry.
AS is the Moon with the Stars unto the expanded Firmament; As are the well ordered Cities with their Ornaments and Fortifications to the Woods and Wilderness; Such is the Church to the rest of the World. The felicity of the Church is in the Love of God, and its blessed influences, whose face is that Sun which doth enlighten and enliven it. If earth and sin had not caused a separation and eclipse, the World and the Church would have been the same, and this Church would have enjoyed an uninterrupted Day-light. It is the Earth that moveth and turneth from this Sun, and not the Suns receding from our Earth, that brings our Night. It is not God, but Man, that lost his Goodness; Nor is it necessary to our Reparation, that a change be made On him, but on us. Christ came not into the World to make God Better, but to make us Better; Nor did he Die to make him more disposed to do Good, but to Dispose us to Receive it: Though as he is extrinsically Denominated from the particular Object, to be particularly Willing of this or that, and to Love that which he Loved not before; so we may well say, that Christ died to purchase for us the Love of God, and to procure his willingness of a present effecting our Remission, and so to Accept and Approve us as his own▪ But his purchase was not Actually to change the mind of God, nor to incline him to have Mercy, who before was dis-inclined: but to make the Pardon of man's sin a Thing convenient, for the Righteous and Holy Governor of the world to bestow, without any impeachment of the Honor of his Wisdom, Holiness or Justice: yea, to the more eminent Glorifying of them all. Two things are requisite to make man to be Amiable in the eyes of God, and a fit Object for the most Holy to take pleasure in: One is in his suitableness to the Holiness of God's Nature: The other respecteth his Governing Justice. We must in this life see God in the Glass of the Creature, and specially in Man that beareth his Image. If a good man be the Ruler of a Common-wealth, as he is Ethically Good, he cannot but loath the Evil, and love the Good: And as he is a Wise and Righteous Governor, he must preserve the honor of his Laws, and thereby his own, by doing Justice on them that violate them, and preserving and encouraging those that do obey them. As man is first considerable as Man, before he be to be considered as a Governor; and as a good Man, before as a good Governor, the first being his Natural Goodness, commonly called his universal Justice, the other his Rectoral Goodness, commonly called his particular Justice, flowing out from the first: so must we (through the necessity of our present weakness) conceive of God. Were we Holy, he would love us as a Holy God: and were we Innocent, he would encourage us as a Righteous and Bounteous Governor. But as there is no particular Governing Justice, without that universal Natural Justice, which it presupposeth, and floweth from; so can there be no such thing as Innocency in us as Subjects, which floweth not from a Holiness of our Natures as Men. We must Be Good, before we can Live as the Good. In both these respects man was Amiable in the eyes of his Maker, till sin depraved him, and deprived him of Both. To Both these must the Savior again Restore him: and this is the work that he came into the World to do, even to seek and to save that which was doubly lost, and to destroy that twofold work of the Devil, who had drawn us to be both Unholy and Guilty. As in the Fall the natural Real Evil was Antecedent to the Relative (Guilt); so is it in the Good conferred in the Reparation. We must in order of nature be first Turned by Repentance unto God, through Faith in the Redeemer, and then receive the Remission of our sins, Acts 26. 18. Rom. 8. 30. And as it was man himself that was the subject of that twofold unrighteousness, so is it man himself that must be restored to that twofold Righteousness which he lost, that is, Sanctity and Not-Guiltiness. Christ came not to possess God with any false opinion of us; nor is he such a Physician as to perform but a supposed or Reputative Cure: He came not to persuade his Father to judge Us to be Well, because He is Well; nor to leave us uncured, and to persuade God that we are Cured. It is We that were guilty and unholy; it is We that must be justified or condemned; and therefore it is We that must be restored unto Righteousness. If Christ only were Righteous, Christ only would be reputed and judged Righteous, and Christ only would be Happy. The Judge of the world will not justify the unrighteous, merely because another is Righteous: Nor can the Holy God take Complacency in an unholy sinner, because another is Holy. Never did the blessed Son of God intend in his dying or merits, to change the holy Nature of his Father, and to cause him to Love that which is not Lovely, or to Reconcile him to that which he Abhorreth, as he is God. We must bear his own Image, and be Holy as he is Holy, before he can Approve us, or Love us in Complacency. This is the work of our blessed Redeemer, to make Man fit for God's Approbation and Delight. Though we are the Subjects, he is the Cause. He Regenerateth us, That he may Pardon us; and pardoneth us, that he may further sanctify us, and make us fit for our Masters use. He will not remove our Guilt till we Return; nor will he Accept our actual services till our Guilt be removed. By supernatural operations must both be accomplished: A Regress from such a Privation as was our Unholiness, requireth a supernatural work upon us: And a deliverance from such Guilt and deserved Punishment, requireth a supernatural operation for us. The one Christ effecteth by his sanctifying Spirit, through the instrumentality of his Word, as Informing and Exciting: The other he effecteth by his own (and his Fathers) Will, through the instrumentality of his Gospel-Grant, by way of Donation, making an universal conditional▪ Deed of gift of himself and Remission and Right to Glory, to all that Return by Repentance and Faith. His Blood is the meritorious cause of both, but not of both on the same Account: For it was directly Guilt only that made his Blood Necessary for our Recovery: Had there been nothing to do but Renew us by Repentance and Sanctification, this might have been done without any Bloodshed, by the work of the Word and Spirit: As God at first gave man his Image freely, and did not sell it for a Price of Blood: Nor doth he so Delight in Blood, as to desire it, or accept it for itself, but for the ends which it must, as a convenient means, attain. Those ends are the Demonstration proximately of his governing Justice, in the vindication of the honor of his Law and Rule, and for the awing of others: ultimately and principally, it is the Demonstration of his natural sin-hating Holiness, and his unspeakable Love to the sons of men, but specially to his Elect: In this sense was Christ a Sacrifice and ransom, and may truly be said to have satisfied for our sins. He was not a sinner, nor so esteemed, nor could possibly take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt which lay on us (the Accident, if removed from its Subject, perisheth) nor yet a Guilt of the same sort, as having not the same sort of foundation or efficient; ours arising from the Merit of our sin, and the Commination of the Law, and His being rather Occasioned then Merited by our sin, and occasioned by the Laws threatening of us (both which are, as we may call them, but Pro -causes, as to him) having neither sin of his own, nor merit of wrath from such sin; nor did the Law oblige him to suffer for our sins; but he obliged himself to suffer for our sins, though not as in our Persons strictly, yet in our stead, in the person of a Mediator.
The Lord our Redeemer having thus laid the foundation, by paying a sufficient ransom for all mankind, and perfectly finished his work of satisfaction, he taketh a longer time for the conveyance of the fruits of it. As the Expiatory sacrifice was for All, so will he have the tenor of his Grant in the Gospel to be Universal, without restraint to any, or excepting any: All shall have Pardon and Right to life Eternal, if they will Believe and Repent, and none shall have them that Refuse these Conditions: 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 first make it ourselves: But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine Grace do begin the difference, and make it in us, before it is made by us. As an Eternal Purpose did Design it, so an insuperable Victorious hand doth execute it: When the same Christ hath died for All, and the same Conditional Grant is made to All, and the same Promulgation of it is made to many, even to All that hear it; Yet the same Victorious Internal Grace is not afforded to All; nor doth God give All a Heart to Believe and Accept of what the Promise offereth them. The Spirit is as the wind, that bloweth where it listeth. All have sufficient Objective Grace, that live under the Go 〈…〉 ; and all have a sufficient Help External or Internal, to make them Better, and bring them Nearer to Christ than they were: But All have not sufficient Internal Grace Immediately to cause them to Believe: much less Effectual. That this is denied to any, is long of themselves, who abuse that Commoner Grace which was sufficient to have made them Better: That it is Granted to Any, is from the Bounty of God: That it is Granted to This man rather then to That, is from his Absolute Dominion, and Will, and his Differencing Grace. We do not only All deserve Death, by Original sin, but we did All Deserve to be Denyed the Grace of Christ, by a following Demerit: And All that want the Gospel, or the special efficacy of it in Regeneration, do by sin against some Common Grace, Deserve that want: (We still suppose Infants Involved in their Parents case) so that God will Judge none on the mere terms of the rigid Law of Nature, nor Condemn them only for Original sin. They that say otherwise, do too injuriously extenuate both the Grace of God, and the sin of man. If All have some Grace shown them (that is, some Mercy contrary to their Merit) then all have some sin against Grace: and then All shall be Judged by the Procurer of that Grace, for their sin against it. It is not the least wrong that the Pelagians, Jesuits and Arminians have done to the Church, that by making Grace Universal further than was just, they have tempted others in way of Opposition to deny that Grace of God which is indeed Universal, or which is Common to more than the Elect alone: and by making Christ to have died for All with an equal Intention of saving them, they have occasioned so many to deny that indeed he did die for All: So that had not the Notions of an Universal sufficiency of Christ's Death, and of an Universal Offer of him in the Gospel, through the Great Mercy of God been preserved among us, and these had much Influence into our Popular and Practical Preaching, we had been drawn very near to a subverting of the very foundation, and should have been too like to them that preach another Gospel, to the great danger of the souls of our hearers, and the dishonor of our Redeemer.
The two great works of Christ in the Application or Collation of the Benefits which he hath Merited, are those before mentioned: Justification, and Sanctification: under the first I contain Remission, Acceptance, Absolution, and Imply Adoption, and our Right to Glory. Under the latter I comprehend, the Giving of the Spirit, and all its Purifying Works upon our souls.
I think it had been well for the Church, if we had used less in our Disputes the term Justification, or had differenced better between the Name and the Thing, and discerned about which it was that we contended: and when we once saw that there was no Hope of agreeing about the sense of that word, if we had treated more fully and distinctly about Remission of sin alone, and under that term, and tried how we could have agreed upon that: Could we yet be so discreet, I think the Church would reap much benefit by it. Doubtless we might much easier convince a Papist, who will allow us so much of that which we demand about Remission of sin, while they contend against us in the point of Justification: when so many of ours do take Remission and Justification for the same thing.
It pleaseth our Physician in a sweet equality to carry on both these happy Works, Remission and Sanctification, and not to let one go so far before the other, as those think, who suppose our sins to be pardoned before they are sins, or that our Pardon is absolutely perfect before our Death. As we shall have more sins to remove by further Sanctification, so shall we have more still to pardon, to the last: and one of these works as well as the other, will be imperfect, till we are perfected. And they that take Pardon and Justification for the same, or the former to be any part of the latter, must then confess that Justification is no more perfect than Pardon is.
They are very different Questions, How we are constituted just, or put into a Justifyed state at our Conversion? and how we are sentenced just, or justified at God's Judgment Seat? They that will needs (to the great disgrace of their understandings) deny that there is any such thing as a justification at Judgment, must either say that there is no Judgment, or that All are Condemned; or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation, as its disjunct species; but some men shall then be judged, who shall neither be justified or condemned. To which end, when they have first taken down the Authority of Christ, who tells us that By our words we shall (then) be justified, or by our words we shall be condemned, they must next take down the Authority of Lawyers, and then, of our common custom of speech, and must set up their own Authority instead of all. To say, God will then but declare us just, is no answer, till they have proved that it is not by a sentence of judgment that he will declare it; or else, that declaring by a sentence of judgment, is no justification; yea, that it is not the most proper and full justification imaginable.
I have said enough in the following Treatise, to show my thoughts of the Necessity and Excellency of Holiness, and sincere obedience. We are taught to pray for it in the Lord's Prayer, (in the three first Petitions) before the forgiveness of sin (in the fifth) And doubtless it is that higher Blessing, which forgiveness tendeth to, as a means to the end: Even that God may have his own again, which was lost, and man may again be nearer and liker to God, and fitter to know, love and honor him, and be happy therein. I scarce know any one error that hath subjected the Church and Christian Religion so much to the jealousies and reproach of unbelievers, or the Reformed Churches to the scorn of the Papists, and so hardened them in their way, as some men's misunderstanding, and misreporting the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to a sinner. But especially by those men, who affirm that we are justified even before we repent or believe, and that through the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, God judgeth the most swinish impenitent wretch, (so he be elect) to be righteous in his sight, and the object of his complacency. As if a man should fall in love with a Toad, upon a false supposition that it is a Lark. Christ's Righteousness is ours for the pardon of our sin, and the merit of Grace and Glory for us: but not to be instead of Faith, Repentance, Sanctification or sincere Obedience. He that hath not these, shall never be saved by Christ's Righteousness. So far as we are sinners, a Pardon is our Righteousness: but so far as we are holy, it is not so: And he that hath not somewhat better then sin in him, is none of Christ's.
As the very constitution of Faith and Repentance to be conditions of pardon, and sincere Obedience to be a condition of Salvation, hath plainly excepted final infidelity and impenitency, and Rebellion, from the number of those sins that shall be pardoned, and we shall be justified from; so must their contraries be found in us at Judgment, if we will be then justified. And then, as the Blood and Merits of Christ (or as commonly its called, his imputed Righteousness) must be the matter of our justification from the guilt of all other sins (that is, from the guilt of all sin, which believers did commit) so must our own personal Faith, Repentance, and sincere Obedience be the matter of our Justification from the particular false Accusation, (potential or actual) of final non-performance of these conditions of the Gospel, and of our having no part in Christ and Life, for want of those conditions. This is the Justification by works (as many are willing to call it, to make it odious) which I do assert and defend, and which I judge so necessary to be believed, that I shall endeavor to acquaint those with it whom I must Catechize.
The sum of what I have said is this; That Mans perfection and felicity is finally in God; and that his Recovery consisteth in being brought b • ck to him, which must be done, as by the Merits of Ch • ist, so by Union with him, and consequently by communication of Life from him: And having union with Christ▪ it necessarily followeth that we have union with the Church, which is his Body, and communion with it. Were we not One among ourselves, we were not A Body: and were we not One in Christ our center and Head, we wer • not His Body. As we have internal communion in the same Spirit, in the same Faith, Hope, and Love; so have we external communion in the same Profession of Faith and Piety (in the essentials) and in the same Practice of Worshiping God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and in sincerely assisting each other for our Salvation.
There is therefore as One only Head and Lord, so one Only Body and Catholic Church, and one only true Religion in the world, and that is the Christian Religion: All that hold the Essentials of this Religion sincerely, are of the true Church, and of the true Religion, and all of One Religion, how different soever in lesser things. Though they may each appropriate Christ and the Church, and the true Religion to themselves, and censoriously exclude all others (as do the Papists) yet are their censured Brethren nevertheless Christians, and of the true Church and Religion for all their censures. Every Child is not a Bastard, nor disinherited, nor cast out of the Family, whom an angry brother shall call Bastard in their fallings out. The relative union holds, even when local conjunction and communion in actual worship, and in the profession of lower Truths is disclaimed. Yea, if a froward Christian say, I am not of the same Church or Religion as you, yet is he not the less of the same (if the other be a Christian): nor doth that break him off, seeing he intendeth not to disclaim Christians as Christians, but as Erroneous. Yet such dislocations, and breaches, and divisions, are the great rejoicing of the enemy of the Church, and the great dishonor of our sacred profession, and tendeth to the great hurt and ruin of the dividers; and hath ever been an exceeding hindrance of the Gospel.
AS it is thus the great design of Christ, by Unity and Purity to bring his Church to perfect felicity, in the full enjoyment of the ever blessed God; so is it the design and • aily business of Satan to counter-work him, and to keep men from felicity in God, by keeping them from Chr • st, from Unity, and from Purity.
His first work is to disgrace the Christian Faith, and to tell men how improbable it is to be true; and to that end to hide the Evidence from their eyes. If he cannot thus totally keep them from Christ, he usually persuadeth them to take up with a bare opinionative assent; and putteth before them the Idols of Pleasure, Profits, and Vain-glory, that they may by a seeming felicity be detained from God.
And as knowing how much the Churches welfare, and the saving of souls, dependeth upon the Teachers and Leaders of the Flocks, his chiefest endeavors are for the perverting of them; that they may become his instruments, to the perverting of the rest.
For Magistrates, he would first taint them with secret infidelity; or else engage them to the utmost in a carnal self-interest, and persuade them that Christ's Interest doth stand in their way. He would delude them so far as to cause them to mistake where their interest lieth, and so to espouse them to an interest inconsistent with Christ's; and then will they be involved before they are aware into a seeming necessity of fighting against Heaven, and secret or open opposition of the Church: The deceiver would make them forget, that from Christ they have their power, and under him and for him must they hold it, and exercise it. A fairer opportunity indeed he hath to draw the Princes and Great ones of the world, to forget that they are but men, and servants, and to forget the fading vanity and danger of their condition, and to Rebel against Christ by self exaltation, then with the meaner and poorer inhabitants of the earth: He offereth them a more golden and glorious bait, and thereby hath hitherto befooled the most of them, to fall upon that stone that will dash them in pieces. Or else if he cannot taint them with the common Profaness, he will at least engage them to a hatred of the power of Godliness. Or if he can taint them (as he did Constantius ) with Heresy, he will engage them to fall upon the soundest in the Church▪ Or can he but delude them to sit by, and as Neuters to look on, as being indifferent between Christ and him, at least, he will deprive the Church of the benefit of their power, or of that special interest in them, which they may claim from their commission. As Nazianzen calls the Magistrate the Vice-gerent of Christ; so may the Church justly say as Tertullian did, Apologet. cap. 33. Imper atorem necesse est ut suspiciamus, ut eum quem Dominus Noster elegit: ut merito dixerim, Noster est magis Caesar, ut à Nostro Deo Constitutus.
But the main design of the enemy is against their Pastors.
Some of them he keeps in a superficial, carnal and customary Christianity; So that they never soundly believed the great mysteries which (for a Living) they study and preach: And how such are like to edify the Church, and preach that heartily to others, that never was in their own hearts, you may easily Judge: when they must speak all out of their books, and by hear-say, and the common opinion of others, of things which they never well believed or felt themselves.
Others he entangleth in worldly affairs, and causeth them to mind the matters of the flesh, that they are heartless and unfaithful in their masters work; So that poor souls may go to Hell with very little disturbance, and starve even at the next door to them, while they are minding their Own matters, or are dulled by lazyness, and addict their chiefest affections and endeavors to the service of so vile a master as their flesh.
How far Satan hath prevailed this way, with the Pastors of the Congregations, is a matter of too clear Evidence, and very sad▪ consideration. As they do most grossly miscarry among the Papists, and more defiled parts of the Church, by keeping up Ignorance, and Discord, and a Carnal, Pompous, Ceremonious worship, that they may uphold a carnal Interest of their own; So I would in the most Reformed Churches we were more Innocent then we are. What an ignorant, or negligent ministry was (for the greater part) in England, in the time of the late Bishops rule, yea what opposers of Godliness, and too many of them openly deboist, I need not tell any that will believe their eyes and ears. And, though through the great mercy of God, the case is much altered in those respects, yet alas, how few are they even of those that we hope are Godly, who earnestly thirst after the saving of men's souls, and lay out themselves freely in public and private, in faithful endeavors to that end? What a multitude of sleepy, heartless Preachers are there, that give not the Alarum of God's approaching Judgment to the drowsy souls that daily sit under them, nor speak to poor people with any such seriousness, as beseems them in a matter of such unspeakable consequence. How seldom in many places shall we hear an awakening heart-warming Sermon? And of those few that are serious and diligent, so few have ability to put their matter into any handsome dress, and so many run out into intemperance and divisions, that it hardeneth the drowsy Preachers the more in their way; and they take their dullness for soberness, and their consciences do the less check them for their neglect of men's souls. This is the unhappy case of many men of Good learning and parts: They are so sensible of the evil of the exorbitancies of the times, that they overlook and regard not the evil of their own heartless and unfaithful Administration. If they hear a Private man use some unfit expressions in prayer, it extremely offendeth them: but if they totally omit it, they are not much offended at it. They forget that God will bear more with many slips of the tongue, and unhandsom words, then with a neglect of his worship, or a heartless performance of it: and that their well-dressed forms, if lifeless, are stinking carcasses, or useless pictures, when a broken heart, with broken expressions may go away with the blessing. And therefore they are commonly against private men's praying together, especially before many; And as the Papists would drive them from the Scripture for fear of abusing it, so would they drive them from such Prayer, lest they should hap to use some unhansome words.
Were there no other charge against the pious Ministry of England, but only the common neglect of Discipline, I think we should be ashamed to look up to heaven. Because the Sword doth not enforce it, they think nothing can be done; such contemptuous thoughts have they of their own offices, and the spiritual Sword which Christ hath put into their hands. Because there are differences about some Modes and Accidents of Discipline, therefore will they neglect the substance, which most are agreed in. Some will examine men's fitness for the Sacrament, and think they have done all, if they keep the unworthy from that Ordinance; suffering them still to remain members, and enjoy other parts of Communion. If Ruling be as Essential a part of our Pastoral work as Preaching, then are those to be numbered among Negligent Ministers, that neglect to Rule, as well as those that neglect to Preach. And why the Magistrate should not Punish such negligent ones, as well as the other, I yet know not.
But the great advantage that Satan hath got upon the Church, through the sin of the Pastors in these latter times, is by Division: For by this he hath much promoted all the rest of his Designs. Infidelity itself breaks in upon us; and not only the vulgar, but many of former forwardness and parts, do question or cast off all Religion, because they see us of so many minds and ways. And our sin hath as heinous Aggravations as most men's can have: In that We are the men that have seen the sad effects of Division, that have had such extraordinary medicines to heal them; such Calls, such opportunities and advantages for a closure, and so long time in all: We have lived to see the Church in danger of being swallowed up by deceit and by violence; and yet as we have laid it open to all this danger by our divisions or negligence, so we do sit still and do little to rescue it from the danger.
Some are regardless of these matters: some only inquire as of a matter of news, what others do in it, and wish it were done, while they sit still: some cry out of the Magistrate for not doing his part, not considering how they condemn themselves for neglecting their own. Few are able to do what our necessity requireth; and not many willing: Few have a skill in narrowing a difference; in finding out the true point and state of it, and hitting on the right remedy: And fewer know their own inability; and therefore we do not only want Healers, but we want men of so much meekness, and self-denial, and Christian humility, as to give their consent, that others may do that, which they cannot do themselves: And well were it if they would not reject what they approve of, merely because it is not of their doing or motioning, or because it comes not from those whom they esteem. Too many there are also, that are so apparently carnal, that they will do nothing till they know whether it be pleasing to those in Power, lest they should make an ill bargain in hazarding their outward welfare, and in displeasing men that can hurt them, to please Christ, who they presume will not hurt them. And yet more are there, that apprehending how much the exercise of Christian Discipline displeaseth the vulgar, and consequently will lose them their love and maintenance, will rather quietly let all alone, then unite with any in so ungrateful a work.
And yet more heinous is our sin in the continuance of these divisions, in that we have been too much guilty of being the Leaders into it, and therefore should lead out of it; and in that it especially belongeth to our office; and in that we have yet some such interest in our people's estimation that we may probably do somewhat toward it. But specially, because the remedy is so obvious, and our union so easy, were we but truly willing and industrious to attain it. 1. For Discipline, our differences lie in so narrow a room, that there is no probability of the continuance of a breach, if we had but got together, and humbly and lovingly followed on the work, in impartial consultations, and in seeking God's direction. 2. And for Doctrine, we have a Test and Rule sufficient to unite in: we have the whole sacred Scripture, which if we all profess to believe, we surely make a full profession of Faith. Or if that be too large, we have the Apostles Creed, or other ancient Creeds of the Church; and the Scripture before us, sufficient to afford us both matter and words for a full and fit Confession of our Faith.
But the Deceiver hath here over-reached us as much as in anything. Some are such Infidels and indifferent to all Religions, that they would have no Test at all, but have all to live in a broken Licentiousness: But I hope amongst Ministers these are but few. The far greater number run into the contrary extreme, and would have almost all that thrust on others which they are confident of themselves: (And confidence is not the best or commonest sign of Truth.) Hence are our large and disputable confessions, to be imposed on others: Hence is it that every man is so ready to lay the heaviest charges on those that differ from his own conceits. That is heinous error which crosseth our opinions, and where we err not for company: and we are willing the Magistrate should restrain men from contradicting us, as being secretly conscious of our own disability, to make good the cause that we are so confident is the right.
All this must be done under some pious pretence: It is in a blind zeal for unity that the Papists destroy (as much as in them lieth) the Unity of the Church: It is in a blind zeal against error that many an error is promoted. The most destructive engine (for ought I can understand that ever was used to divide that Church, were Human, superfluous, and questionable Rules, in imposed Confessions, intended by proud and ignorant men, for the Unity of that Church, and the security of the Truth.
THese being the apparent ways of the Churches Recovery by Christ, and its danger from the Deceiver, which are before mentioned; I have judged it my duty to promote as much as I could, Christ's means for our recovery, and to oppose as much as I could the Enemies designs and endeavors for our ruin. And in my weak performances my encouragements have been such from God and man, that I have no cause to complain, or to be much discouraged by some smaller Opposition. I must needs confess that I did not, nor could in modesty expect the tenth part of that acceptance and fruit of my poor Labors, as upon experience I have since found. And when I meet with opposition, my conscience constraineth me to suspect my own miscarriage, and first to inquire, how far I have given cause. But when I have made as impartial an enquiry as I am able, and am more confirmed in the Truth which I have owned, I dare not desert that Truth under pretence of humility. Nor dare I bely myself to humor other men.
The Objections that I have heard made against me, besides what in this Book I have answered already, I shall here briefly touch upon, and give some part of my answer in the words of others that can better bear off the blow, because mine own are so liable to misconstructions, and have by these dissatisfied Brethren been so much wrested as they have oft been.
1. Some have given out that I am addicted to singularity, and affect to hear an Egoprimus inveni. Their proof for ought that ever I could learn, is only from my Writings, because I say not in all things as they do.
To these Brethren I say 1. I shall promise by the grace of God to watch my heart with what diligence I can, against the affectation of singularity, and I desire their prayers and admonitions for my furtherance. 2. And I would have them also search, lest they prove guilty of a slander, while they enter into men's hearts, and venture to proclaim what they do not know. Is this the encouragement they give to Truth, that no man can tell them one word more then they have considered (though he profess himself never so much below them in other things) but it must be rejected as Novelty, and himself charged with singularity? Are they sure that I may not have better ends then they imagine? 3. And I shall engage the small reputation of my reading, to make good, that the Opinions which I oppose are most, if not everyone of them, notorious Novelties, contrary to the Doctrine of the Ancient Christians for many hundred years after Christ. I profess to esteem it an unchristian thing to hunt after same and vain-glory, much more to purchase it by the sale of Truth; and such courses can bring nothing but Infamy in the end. The great differencing Characters which Tertullian giveth between an Infidel and a Christian, have taken much with me, and seemed to me excellently accommodated to each, Apol. cap. 46. Quid adeo simile Philosophus & Christianus? Graeciae Discipulus & Coeli? Famae Negotiator, & vitae? Verborum & factorum operator? To Trade for life eternal, is not consistent with Trading principally for Fame.
2. It is objected, that surely I am Proud, and the evidence is, that I contradict so many others, and speak so slightly of others as I do.
Answ. 1. I say to this as to the former: I will by God's help search my heart for the sin of Pride, and desire them to do the like, and see that they be well acquit from usurping God's prerogative, and slandering their Brother. And this I dare say, that the evidentest victory that I have had against any sin (except Covetousness) is against Pride; and if I have not conquered this, I have conquered none: And yet I feel such relics of it, that I am forced to suspect it, and constantly watch against it in all my undertakings. 2. But how come I to be so unhappy, that only those that know me not, load me with this charge, and never any one Brother did tell me of it to my face? 3. It may be worth their labor to search, how much Pride may lie in their impatiency of contradiction, and making a man an offender for a word, and being such that a man knows not how to speak to them, for fear of seeming contumelious, by withdrawing, or not giving them the honor they expect. I remember how Austin excused his friend to a man of such a spirit, and with a fear lest after his greatest caution he should seem contumelious himself by the Apology, Epist. 143. ad Proculeianum. Audivi de Memorato fratre te fuisse conquestum, quod nescio quid tibi contumeliose responderit: quod quaeso te ne illam contumeliam deputes, quum centum mihi est non de superbo animo processisse: Novi enim fratrem meum: sed siquid in disputando pro fide sua, & pro Ecclesiae charitate, dixit fortasse ferventius, quam tua gravitas nollet audire; non illa Contumacia, sed fiducia nominanda est. Collatorem enim & disputatorem, non Assentatorem & Adulatorem, se esse Cupiebat. Vereor ne me quoque aliquid contumeliose in te dicere existimes: quod vehementer Caveo, quantum possum.
4. If it be Pride in me to contradict a few Divines in this part of the Church, in this and one former age, and that with so great tenderness & • espect, what is it in them to Contradict the ancient Doctors and Churches, till these days, and all the other Churches of the world till now? 5. Let the Citations in this Book witness, whether I proudly affect singularity. 6. I am reviled as a Papist by Mr. Crandon, for teaching People to depend so much upon their Guides. And will they yet condemn me also, for not depending on them? yea for not believing them against the Evidence of Truth? which I never persuaded the lowest Christian to▪ And if I must needs depend on any, me thinks it should be on the Antient Churches and Doctors, whom themselves do contradict, and mention with higher charges of error (whether that be pride let them see to it) then ever I did them. I remember the ancient Character of a Pagan and a Christian: Tertull. Apolog. c. 45. Vobis humana aestimatio innocentiam tradidit: humana item Dominatio imperavit: inde nec plenae, nec adeo timendae estis disciplinae ad innocentiae Veritatem. Tanta est Prudentia hominis ad demonstrandum bonum, quantum authoritas ad exigendum, tam illa falli facilis, quam ista Contemni.
Nazianz. Orat. 27. pag. 468. ( Edit. Morel.) Atqui plerisque secus videtur, inquies. Quid vero mea interest, qui rei veritatem magis curo, immo solum curo? hoc enim vel me Condenmaverit, vel absolverit: hoc miserum vel beatum reddiderit. At quid aliis videatur, nihil ad nos, quemadmodum nec alienumsomnium.
Ob. 3. But thus you break the Churches Peace, while you pretend to be zealous for it: why do you not let go Truth for Peace?
Answ. 1. Have the Dissenters studied an answer to this Question themselves?
2. I resolve by God's help never to own or subscribe to one word of error for Peace: (& therefore desire much Caution in Imposed Confessions): But I am resolved to silence any Truth for the Churches Peace, which is not of greater moment and worth than its Peace, so to be obtained.
3. I never yet was Conscious of such a Guilt, of breaking the Churches Peace by the divulging my opinions, (except in human frailties, in the manner of declaring them): I never endeavor to make a party for my opinions. I ever spoke more against such parties, then for my opinions. My Doctrines, which they blame, are so purposely designed for healing of the divided Churches, that it was my chief motive to publi • h them. The Churches were lamentably divided about such things, before that I did offer my thoughts for a Remedy: Am not I then dealt with, as if I went to part two that are fighting in the street? and though I speak them fair, and persuade them to be friends, they take witness that its I that break the Peace?
4. It is not the peace of one divided party or Country, that is the Peace of Christ's Church: Nor doth it beseem any Christian to have so narrow a Spirit, and to overlook Christ's Interest in the rest of the Churches: but to remember the Condition of their Brethren abroad.
5. I do here offer it as my he • ty desire, That my Brethren of the Ministry in any of their Associations, when they are Assembled within my reach, where I may be present, would freely question anything in my Doctrine which they dislike, and when they have heard me speak for myself, if they shall afterward determine that I ought to silence such Doctrines, or that the delivering of them tendeth to the disquiet of the Church, I do promise (if as aforesaid, they seem not to me of such evidence and moment, as to be of more value then the Churches Peace, of which sort I take not many to be besides fundamentals) that I will forbear any further publication of them. Yea we have long been under such an Agreement in this County, whereby we are engaged to be accountable for our Doctrine to the Associated Ministers; and never any yet once questioned me for anything which I had Printed or Preachit, nor desired me to forbare.
I leave it therefore to a more impartial censure, whether I be guilty of breaking the Churches Peace.
Obj. 4. Some are much offended that I have Replyed to some Brethren that have written against me.
Answ. Is it their duty to begin, and is it my sin to make a necess • ry Defense? Either their writings were contemptible, or of considerable weight; should I say the first, it would be justly taken ill: If the latter, either they prove me erroneous, or not. If they do, let the equal considerer of both discern it: he may best judge that hears both speak: Blame me not then for Replying, (but for erring in my Reply; and show me the error. If they do not convince me of error, should I silently suffer the Reputation of man to cloud the Truth, and wrong the Church, and draw people into mistakes? And is it not marvel that this Objection should seem of force against me, for my Defense, & not against them that begin by an Accusation? Do we use to hear men called into question at any public Bar, and then blamed and reviled, for appearing, or for making their Defense? But this proceeds from the respect of persons; which blindeth the wise, and perverteth Justice.
Thence it is, that I am blamed by many Friends for Replying to my Reverend Brother Master Blake, who yet tell me that for all the rest its no matter, they deserved no better: When I used more reverence and care to avoid offensive words to him, then any another. Jerome saith thus to Augustine (Hieron. Tom. 2. p. 352. Edit. Basil. Et inter Epist. August. est Epist. 18. pag. 27. Edit. Paris.) Nec ego tibi, sed causa causae respondit. Et si culpa est respondisse, quaeso ut patienter audias, multo major est provocasse: sed facessant istiusmodi queremoniae; sit inter nos pura Germanitas; & deinceps non Quaestionum, sed charitatis, ad nos Scripta Mittamus.
Object. 5. Others say that by intimating their errors, I dishonor the Ministry, and bring them into reproach.
Answ. 1. And yet I am blamed for honoring them so much, and drawing the people to so much dependence on them.
2. Then do I more dishonor myself: For, though I yet know them not in particular (for else I erred not) yet in general, I doubt not but I have a multitude of errors, and shall have while I am here, where we know but in part.
3. He that exalteth himself shall be brought low, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. It will more honor any Minister humbly to confess his imperfection, then to take himself wronged by those that modestly intimate them, by asserting the contrary Truth. Great Augustine was not too good to confess more, Epist. 140. Audaci. Oraculum legis quomodo sum, de cujus latis atque abditis penetralibus, Nescio longe plura quam scio? And oft he hath the like.
4. I can honor and reverence my Brethren, while I honor not their error, which I would hate if I found it in myself. August. Epist. 147. Quid autem in te honorare non dubitem, facile intellig • s: Non errorem schismatis, unde omnes quantum ad me attinet cupio sanari, dignum honor aliquo existimo.
5. I must freely confess that I both take the generality of the Ministers now in England, to be the best and wisest sort of men in the Land; and yet to be a great cause of our troubles and calamities, in that they are not wiser and better then they are: Their calling requireth so much more then a common degree of wisdom and goodness, that if they be but merely honest as other men, they will be our ruin. Nazianz. Orat. 1. saith ( pag. 8.) Praefecti vel Autistitis (vitium est) non quam-optimum esse, nec novas subinde virtutum accessiones facere: Siquidem virtutis suae praestantia multitudinem ad mediocritatem tracturus sit: Ibid. Profecto Ars quaedam Artium & scientia scientiarum mihi esse videtur hominem regere, animal omnium maxim varium & multiplex. Et p. 6. At vero homini cum difficile sit scire parere, tum multo difficilius esse videtur, scire hominibus imperare; at praesertim in hoc nostro imperio, quod in lege divina situm est, & ad Deum ducit: cujus quo majus est fastigium, majorque dignitas, eo etiam majus periculum est; prudenti utique homini & corda • o.
Object. 6. Another accusation is, that I am solicitous after a union with such as are not to be united with; and to that end do bend the Truth to such a shape as may seem least offensive to them; which compliance or syncretism affected with such men, doth argue some secret inclination to their opinions, more then I yet manifest.
Answ. 1. For the latter part, I have no answer to make, but to appeal to him that knoweth the heart, and knoweth whether I dissemble my faith, or they be daring slanderers that give this out. I have spoke to this in my following Confession, and add with Tertul. Apol. c. 20. Nemo jam infamiam incutiat, nemo aliud existimet, quia nec fas est ulli de sua Religion mentiri.
2. I affect no union with any that are not united to Christ, or appear so to me, by being in union with his Church: I will incorporate with none that deny any fundamental essential point of Christianity: And for the rest, I close not with them in their errors, but in the true faith which they profess. And those that be unfitted for actual Communion, though I communicate not with them, yet do I take it to be my duty to do my best to make them fit. I will not close with a Papist, as a Papist; but if I meet with a Christian that goeth under that name, I will own him as a Christian, though not as a Papist; and I would endeavor to undeceive him that I might fullier join with him: And to that end I would take out of the way some hurtful stumbling blocks, that I find there laid. If he be cursed that putteth a stumbling block before the blind, I doubt he is too guilty that is angry with him that would remove it.
3. In ever affected a Union on unlawful terms (so far as I could discern them;) Never did I motion that we might renounce the least part of God's Truth for unity with any: but only that we might find out the true point of difference, and remove our verbal quarrels out of the way, and then consider, whether our disagreements are such as will warrant a rejection, separation, and condemnation of each other, or not; and accordingly to close, or alienate. In our Agreement about Discipline, some are offended that we affected any agreement with the Episcopal Divines: and most of them, as averse from it, and undisposed to close with others; As if indeed we were not all Brethren; and might not well be agreed, were we truly and conscionably willing: For my part, I see no greater difficulty in the business.
4. The forwardness that is in many men to keep open divisions, and to think those that say not as they, to be so great Heretics or so erroneous, that we must affect no communion with them, and thus making such grounds of their own for Church Union, which will not bear it, is a downright mark of a Schismatical Spirit, how earnestly soever they may speak against Schism. There will never be a sound Closure and Union but on Christ's Ground-work, and in him as the Center. The Papists are the greatest Schismatics in the world (that I know of) and yet they are the greatest pretenders to Unity, and decryers of Schism, and all by making a new Center for Unity: which who so doth not close in, must be disclaimed by them as Schismatical; that is, by making new Articles of Faith, and a new Head to the Church Catholic. And do not some enemies of Popery, turn so far to Popery, in appropriating the Church to their own party, and making their opinions (which the Church never owned, at least for four hundred years) to be the ground of Unity, and Test of true Christians!
5. I never thought that when ever men differ, it is my duty to go in a middle between both (for so that middle will be next taken for an extreme, and men must seek out another middle to avoid that:) but yet I have observed not only that in most differences, men can hardly keep out of extremes, and that Truth and Peace do exceedingly befriend each other: but also that Anstins Argument is very probable, in Epist. 204. Donato: persuading him to return from Schism to the Church, Ibi est veritas & pietas▪ quia ibi est Christiana unitas & Sancti Spiritus Charitas. However I am certain that our torn condition is not so desirable to any sensible well-tempered Christian, as that it should seem to him an evil to attempt to heal us. Its sad to me to see it with us, as Augustine sometime complained, Epist. 147. Mariti & uxores de suo Lecto sibi consentiunt: & de Christi altari dissentiunt: Filii cum perentibus unam domum habent suam; & domum Dei non habent unam. Succedere in eorum haereditatem cupiunt, cum quibus de Christi heriditate rixantur. Servi & Domini Communem Deum dividunt, qui formam servi accepit ut omnes serviendo liberaret.
In a word, it is my daily desire, and prayer to God, That those men who hate so narrow a Creed, and so large a Church, and think so contemptuously of men, for some failings in Doctrine or Practice, may not by a sad eruption of open Infidelity among us (and that by means of such as were strict professors) be forced to set a higher value on those whom they now contemn: I must say as Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 26. pag. 458. Tu viam minime tritam & inaccessam ingrederis: ego tritam atque calcatam, & qua multi ad salutem pervenerunt. Nihil fide nostra, fratres, iniquius fingi posset si in eruditos tantum dicendique facultate, ac Logicis demonstrationibus excellentes caderet; popularis autem multitudo, ut auro & argento, aliisque omnibus rebus, quae hic in pretio habentur, atque a plerisque avidissime expetuntur, sic hac quoque frustraretur, ac Deus id quod altum & excelsum est atque ad paucos pertingit, gratum acceptumque haberet; contra, quod propinquius est, nec vulgi captum superat, aspernaretur & rejiceret. Vide reliq.
Yet I must confess that the Brethren whom I now blame have one extenuation (though not sufficient excuse) for their sin; so many and desperate errors have of late risen up, that it is no wonder, if they be raised to too much jealousy, and be too ready to charge error upon all that speak anything which they do not well understand. Saith Erasmus in vita Hieronymi. Nullum fuit unquam seculum seditiosius, neque Confusius; & sic omnia contaminarant haereticorum errores ac dissidia, ut magnae cujusdam artis fuerit orthodoxum esse. But yet it is sad that this should so much wrong the Truth of God, by driving men into such extremes, as the same Erasmus there mentioneth, In isto factiosissimo seculo, vix quisquam eximie doctus haereseos suspitione carebat. A wise man is long in attaining to wisdom, and with much diligence knoweth more then others: but its easy for a brainsick self-conceited Opinionist, to call him Heretic for it, when he hath all done.
1. The seventh and great Objection is, that I ascribe too much to man's works. To which having answered through the main body of this Book, I shall now only say, 1. That I suppose if I differ from the commonest opinion among us, it is but in giving less to man's works then they do: Nor shall their confident denial without any evidence, make me think otherwise. He that is justified by Faith as an instrument, is justified by it as an agent or act; for Actio est Instrumenti causalitas. I dare not go so high for all the new Arguments that I see produced for it. 2. I see many well meaning zealous men dividing our Religion, and running into two desperate extremes. One sort by the heat of opposition to Popery, do seem to have forgotten, that Faith and Christ himself, are but Means, and a way for the revolting soul to come home to God by; and thereupon place all the essence of their Religion in bare Believing, so making that the Whole, which is but the Door or Means to Better, even to a conformity of the soul to the image and will of God.
Others observing this error, fly so far from it as to make Faith itself and Christ to be scarce necessary: so a man have but God's image, say they, upon his soul, what matter is it, which way he comes by it? whether by Christ or by other means! And so they take all the History of Christ to be a mere Accident to our necessary belief; and the precepts only of Holyness to be of Absolute Necessity.
The former contemn God, under pretence of extoling Christ. The latter contemn Christ, under pretence of extolling God alone. For the object is apprehended only by the act: he therefore that contemneth the act, doth contemn the object, as an object. And so he that pretending to extol Christ or Faith, degradeth Godliness, thereby so far rejecteth God: And he that on pretence of extolling Godliness, degrradeth Faith, so far rejecteth Christ its object, which makes me think of a Passage of Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 1. pa. 16. where showing how by abusing the Doctrine of the Trinity some were become Atheists (that is, denied consequently any God-head) and some Jews (as Arius ) he addeth a third sort that in a mistaking way of avoiding the former being nimis Orthodoxi, too Orthodox, did worship many God's in the Trinity.
On the one side, Christ were not Christ, the Savior of souls, if he should not by Faith, bring them to holiness, and save them from their sins.
On the other side, it is a false supposition that any but Christ is able to renew God's Image on the soul. For,
1. It is only Christ that by his blood hath removed Impediments, and purchased this Power, not into another's hand, but into his own.
2. It is Christ only that by office is appointed thereunto:
3. It is Christ only that hath given sufficient precepts, Directions, and Rules for Sanctification.
4. And he only that hath propounded a sufficient Encouragement and Motive in the Promises of another Life.
5. And it is he only that can send forth a Conquering Spirit, to sanctify and bring back the souls of men to God. It is only to him that God hath committed the Spirit thus to bestow.
I do therefore detest both these extremes. But yet it being the former that I take to be the greater, and that too many men of better repute do give too much countenanc to, in their inconsiderate disputes against Works in Justification, I thought I had a Call to speak in so great a Cause.
My opinion is that its Essential to Justifying Faith to take Christ as Lord and Savior; and that they who say, But not qua Justifying, do emply false Doctrine▪ as I have elsewhere discovered: I think that Holyness is of the Essence of Christianity; and if I were sure a man were unholy, I would not call him (except analogically) a Christian. Tertul. Apol. c. 46. saith, Sed dicet aliquis etiam de nostris excedere quosdam a Regula disciplinae: Desunt tum Christiani haberi penes nos: Philosophi vero illi cum talibus factis in Nomine & in honor sapientiae perseverant. And cap. 43. Nemo illic (in carceribus, &c.) Christianus nisi plane tantum Christanus: aut si aliud, jam non Christianus. Athenagoras Legat. pro Christ. p. 3. Nullus enim Christianus malus est, nisi hanc professionem simulaverit. That it is the very business of Christ, the Spirit and all Ordinances, to bring back the soul from God to the Creature. See what Nazianz. saith, Orat. 1 pag. 11. Huic contra a scopus est, animae pennas addere, ac mundo eam eripere, Deoque dare, Divinamque Imaginem, aut manentem Conservare, aut periclitantem fulcire, aut 〈…〉 psum in Pristinum statum revocare, Christumque per spiritum sanctum in pectoris domicilium admittere: atque ut summatim dicam, eum, qui superni agminis sit, Deum efficere, & supernam beatitudinem ipsi comparare: Huc Magistra Lex tendit▪ Huc inter Christum & Legem interjecti prophetae: Huc spiritualis Legis profector & finis, Christus: Huc exinanita Deitas: Huc assumpta Caro: Huc nova illa mixtio, Deus inquam & Homo. Vide reliq.
The Affections of man do show his Nature and Inclination: what a man Loveth, such he is. God is Holy, and therefore Loveth Holyness: The Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness. Did God care as little what we are in ourselves, as some Imagine, & could love with Complacency the unholy, Impenitent, Rebellious sinner, upon supposition that Christ is Righteous and Holy for him, he were not what he hath told us he is in his Word. To deny God to be Holy, is to deny him to be God. And he that once believeth he hath an unholy God, or a God so indifferent to the Holy and unholy, no wonder if he be unholy himself. For all will affect to be like their God; At least none sure will think it necessary to be better then God. No wonder therefore that the Heathens lived wickedly, who worshipped wicked livers as their God's.
It is a Cutting passage of Augustine, Epist. 202. Neclario, telling out of Terence of the young man that was incited to lechery, by seeing the picture of Jupiter on the wall, committing adultery; he adds, that if he had chosen rather to imitate Cato than Jupiter, he had never been so tempted: Sed quo pacto id faceret cum in Templis adorare cogeretur Jovem potius quam Catonem. They that feign God so indifferent to Holyness, which his people excel in, do either make holiness a defect, and none of God's Image, or else they make man to be better then God; and Consequently to be God's: For he that is Best is God.
I must therefore be excused, if I make not such a distance between Faith and Holyness, as some do (And yet a difference I make); and yet suppose that I am so far from dishonoring free Grace hereby, that I should but deny and reproach it, if I did otherwise. For its greater Grace to give Justification and Sanctification, then to give one alone. August. Epist. 3. Volus. saith, Christ came In Magisterium & Adjutorium: And its called Adjutorium because sine Gratia fidei quae ab illo est, Nemo potest vincere concupiscentias vitiosas: Et sique earum residua non vicerit veniali Remissione purgari. Here is that common old Doctrine which some say is a joining Christ's righteousness and our own: viz. (Though Christ pardon all former sins at our Conversion, yet for the time after) his first work is to sanctify, and pardon doth but save us from the penalty of the rest, which through the Imperfection of Sanctification is not overcome. And doubtless our best obedience is but a Receiving more, and therefore a fruit or part of Grace. August. Epist. 5. Marc • l. Nihil Deus I • bet quod sibi prosit, sed illi cui Iubet.
I do therefore so ascribe to man, that God's Grace may be advanced by it, and not denied or extenuated. As August. Epist. 46. Valentino. Si non est Dei Gratia, quomod • salvat mundum? Et si non est liberum Arbitrium, quomodo Iudicat Mundum? The old character of a Christian was not only from his belief or Imputed Righteousness. Tertuall. Apol. c. 40. Nos vero Iejuniis aridi, & omni continentia expressi, ab omni vitae fruge dilati, in sacco & cinere voluntates, invidia Coelum tundimus Deum tangimus, & cum miserecordiam extorscrimus, &c. Augustine's whole tractate de fide & operibus is worth the reading to this business, cap. 21. p. 34. Hoc itaque prodest in Deum recta fide credere, Deum colere, Deum nosse, ut & been vivendi ab illo sit nobis auxilium, & si peccaverimus, ab illo indulgentiam mereamur; non in factis quae odit securi perseverantes, sed ab eis recedentes, &c. Et cap. 23. Inseperabilis est bona vita a fide quae per dilectionem operatur: immo vero ea ipsa est bona vita. Had I said so, it would have been offensive.
The occasion of this writing (as I have shown in the beginning of it) was a strange Volume of Mr. Crandons, seconded by Mr. Kendal, ushered in by Mr. Eyre, and modestly commended to the Public view by Mr. Caryl: This writer did by an Epistle to the Ministers of England invite them to such dealing, as he had given them an Example of. Seeing he hath led me that way, I am willing that They should have the Hearing and true knowledge of the cause. Though I then hated keen Censures and Divisions in the Societies that I affected, yet I must confess the time was when I had too Narrow thoughts of the Church of Christ, and little minded the Peace of any but of that Partie in it which I most honored; and thus was involved in the guilt of Faction for want of such Catholic Considerations and Affections as beseem a Member of the Catholic Church. Then was I loved and esteemed by my Brethren, and met with none of their Censures or Calumnies; For though I did not wholly put mine eyes and ears into their keeping, having still an unsatisfied thirst after Truth, yet they were the Persons whom I trusted and subscribed to. But since I have seen and disclosed the Evil of a Private Spirit, and of dividing principles, and extremes in▪ Doctrine and Practice, I find the Indignation of that Spirit which I oppose. Christ came not to bring me peace, when he shown me his Truth. Since I grew into so high an esteem of Unity, some would constrain me to be a man of Contention: and since I so valued Peace as to be even fond on it, it seems to draw back.
Me thinks I could better bear almost any other censure or opposition, then to be taken for a Divider or disturber of that Peace which I so earnestly affect. But as Seneca makes it the greatest trial of a Good man, when he can Boni viri famam perdere, for the love of goodness; so I look on it as my Trial, whether I can lose the fame of being Peaceable, for a love to Peace. Upon enquiry into the cause of this offense, me thinks I have found some in myself, and some in my Brethren. In myself I find 1. That my knowledge being very defective, the imperfections of it will appear in all that I do. But I thought that this would not have offended them that were not offended with me when I knew less: (excuse me that I say, I know more then I did: men that see, are apt to be confident of it, when they cannot well demonstrate it to another.) 2. I find that there are some in cautelous passages in my Aphorisms, not fitted to their reading that come to suck poison, and to seek for a Word to be matter of Accusation, and food for their censuring Opinionative zeal. I supposed this would have been pardoned also, when the occasion was known, and when I compared my careless style with a multitude of approved Writers. Among others, I thought I discerned these Reasons of the offense. 1. There are so many contrary Parties in the Church, that it is impossible to please all: He therefore that will please, must choose his Party, and resolve to displease all save them, and not extend his ambition too far. 2. He that will please, must have no Adversary. But if there be but one man found that hath malice enough to Accuse, there will many be found to receive his false reports. 3. My Judgment hath led me on to those Doctrines which exasperate not only single persons, but Parties, especially the Antinomians, Anabaptists and Separatists: And there are some men who are half of their mind, that keep up some good reputation with the Orthodox; and so standing in Judgment and Interest between both, are the readier to receive, and the more capable to hand up the Jealousies of the rest. 4. Local distance doth much disadvantage me: it being only those that know me not, or live not within the reach of my converse that seem offended: and so I have not opportunity to give them that satisfaction, and mollify their minds, as I doubt not but I should do, if I lived among them. 5. It is an unhappy Age to speak anything in, that seemeth new, or not common, though but in Method: there being so many Heresies and wicked Doctrines of late sprung up among us, and all under pretence of a progress in knowledge, and of further light, that I cannot blame any wise and godly man to be wary and cautelous what he doth receive. 6. Satan is an enemy to all Truth, but especially to Uniting and Reforming Purifying Truths. 7. Though I offend, I must say that which cannot be hid. Divines are too few that are impartially and diligently studious for Truth, and take not things upon prejudice and trust from a Party: And yet fewer that have strong Judgments, and are able to discern it, though they do study it: When they have followed on an enquiry a little way, and find that truth doth like the branches of a Tree, or the veins in man's body, go smaller and distinct, then are they unable to follow it any further, and to see the truth in so fine a thread. I arrogate not this to myself, the want whereof I discern in others: but yet I wonder oft at the confidence of such men: and can well say as August. Epist. 29. Hieronymo. Adversus eos qui sibi videntur scire quod nesciunt, hoc tutiores sumus, quod hanc ignorantiam nostram non Ignoramus: Which is the scope of much of my Apol. against Mr. K. 8. I find myself much injured by the excessive estimation and praises of those that approve of my Labors, I mean the less discreet among them: for that enrageth some others, and whets them on to a contention. I do therefore bespeak all such friends in the words of Augustine, Epist. 7. Marcell. Vos autem qui me multum diligitis, si talem me asseritis adversus eos quorum malitia, vel Imperitia, vel Intelligentia reprehendor, ut me nusquam scriptorum meorum errasse dicatis, frustra laboratis; non bonam causam suscepistis: facile in ea, meipso judice, superamini; Quoniam non mihi placet cum a charissimis meis talis esse existimor, qualis non sum. Profecto enim non me, sed pro me alium, sub meo nomine diligunt, si non quod sum, sed quod non sum, diligunt.
Yea, the very number of Assenters I find is an offense: but that I cannot help. Good men when they think any Truth to be an Error, will be sorry that it is entertained. Doctor Owen thus Prefaceth to Mr. Eyre's Book: For the present I shall only say, That there being too great evidence of a very welcome entertainment, and Acceptance given by Many to an almost pure Socinian Justification and Exposition of the Covenant of grace, even amongst them into whose hearts God seems to have shined, in some measure, to give the light of the knowledge of his Glory in the face of Jesus Christ. He that should think any Doctrine to be against God, I wonder not if he think himself bound to oppose it. But to be Almost an Error, is to be a Truth: There is but a thread between Truth and Error; and that which is not Neer to that Error, is not Truth, but is liker to be another Error in the other extreme: For Truth is one strait line, but Error is manifold; even All that swarveth from that line, in what space and degree soever. I purposed to have said nothing to this Reverend Brother Doctor Owen; but when I came to answet the Arguments for Justification, or Absolution, or Remission before Faith, I found myself engaged to do it, because I knew of none that had said so much as he there doth; and because (since the publishing of my Apology) two or three reverend Brethren told me that, as to that part, it was thought necessary.
There is lately come forth a second Part of a Treatise of Justification, by a Reverend Brother; wherein some things which I have delivered are opposed; especially that sincere obedience is a condition, & causa sine qua non of our Justification as continued (or non-amittendi justificationem, and of final sentential Justification, if he speak to me) He being one of the two to whom I first directed my Aphorisms; I there promised, that if he dissented I would search again, and be the more suspicious of my thoughts: which I have accordingly done. And whether it be my unhappy darkness, or my certain knowledge of his mistake, or what ever the cause be, I am left but the more confident of the Truth of what he opposeth. Certain I am, that I am willing to know the Truth, though it were to tht Retractation of all that I have wrote. The strength of his Arguments lies upon a supposition, that Conditions have a Moral▪ efficiency▪ which he is pleased to prove by his bare affirmation; yea after I had denied it, both to himself in private writings, and in my Books publicly, and affirmed that its against the common sense of Lawyers, and that a Condition qua Condition hath no efficiency, though some Conditions qua Meritorious may; yet was he not pleased to take any notice of this, as if his affirmation excluded all need of a further proof. And pag. 220. he doth thus state the question, Upon what account these are required in justified persons? Whether in some causality or concurrence as faith is? only not with such a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, so that we may say, justifying Repentance, justifying Law, as well as justifying Faith? This is positively and vehemently affirmed by some. And he plainly shows that it is myself that he speaks of. I do truly continue that high estimation of this Reverend Brother which I first did sincerely express. But all men are imperfect: I much desire more candor and truth in these passages. I vehemently disclaimed, 1. All causality of works or Faith to Justification, to himself in private writings. 2. As also I shown him that if I were guilty of bringing them too near to an equality, it was by taking down Faith more then he, but not by raising works higher then others. 3. I gave him reasons why it was not fit to say, Justifying Repentance, Love, &c. 4. It was so far from my thoughts to talk or think of Justifying Law, (if he mean not the Gospel promise, as its like he doth not: for else sure he would not account it strange) that I purposely wrote against it, and as plainly as I could speak. And yet must I be said, or intimated vehemently and positively to affirm such things? Why then, what good will disputing do? Or what Remedy but to appeal to a Juster Judge! That Credere, to Believe or lay hold on Christ, though they be Grammatical Actions, yet they are naturally passions, as Intelligere, videre, &c. which pag. 225. he makes to be the fullest representation of that Truth. This, I say, is the point which I gave him in writing my reasons against, but he here takes no notice of them. Whether my forementioned promise in my Epistle to Aphor. oblige me to a Reply to what is said against me in this Book, I shall consider, as God affordeth me opportunity, and shall hearken to what others advise me to therein. But if I return no Reply, I yet conceive myself fully excusable. 1. In that the Author in his Epistle, seemeth to avert it, professing his thoughts against Replying to a whole Book. If I write then, he will take what scraps he please into consideration: and if I Reply to all his, it seems, I shall do what he judgeth unmeet. 2. It so falls out that I have answered him already in this Confession, before I saw his Book: so that I think there needs no more. Whether it be new Doctrine to assert such conditions as I do, and whether his Doctrine, pag. 346. be true or tolerable, that as in Christ's suffering we were looked upon by God as suffering in him; so by Christ's obeying of the Law, we were beheld as fulfilling the Law in him, &c. I leave it to the Reader to judge, when he hath read what I have here •• d to the contrary.
But I must desire my Reverend Brother not to be offended that I prove this doctrine the very foundation of Antinomianism; For when I did that, I little thought that he would own it: and if I had, I durst not have been silent. 3. If I may escape the censure of charging my Reverend Brother with contradictions, or labor in vain, I would desire the Reader to consider, whether after all his gainsaying, he do not openly aver the same doctrine which I maintain? pag. 118. he gives us these words, as remarkable in a different Character. For though holy works do not justify, yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of justification: so that did not the Covenant of Grace interpose, gross and wicked ways would cut off our justification, and put us in a state of condemnation.
And Pag. 429. For although Christ did fulfil the Law for such who are his, yet this is not imputed and accounted immediately to everyone, but its applied in that way and order which God hath appointed: and that order is to communicate the benefit of his active obedience, to none but such who shall by faith receive him, and obedientially walk in his commands. Believe these things, Reader, and I will not differ with thee about the name of a Condition. Call it what you will for me. 4. My last Reason is, because those Reverend Brethren that I have spoke with since they read it, do tell me, that they judge the contradiction to me to be so superficial and without proof, that I need not be solicitous to hinder its success: Though for my part, I bear some kind of reverence even to his mistakes, through my love and reverence to himself.
And I shall the more easily be persuaded to forbear more writings of this sort, not only because my friends at a distance do so importune me to a more profitable kind of employment, but also because it pleaseth God of late to call out more enough to such undertakings. There is newly come out against Antinomianism, as Mr. Hotch his Exercitation of Remission of sin, so Mr. Warren against Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Grail against him also, for the conditionality of the Covenant of Grace: and both judicious, and well worthy the reading: which I willingly say, though the former differ from me about the notion of Faiths instrumentality, and before the later Master Constant Jessop hath published a large Epistle to vindicate Dr. Twisse from that opinion about Justification which I supposed him to be guilty of. And truly I was much taken with that Preface when I read it, and said, Its pity it should be upon mistake: and if it be, me thinks (in that case) I am ready to love his mistake, for the charity in it, and the desirableness of the thing asserted, more then my own ungrateful interpretation, though it should be true. And I heartily thank that▪ Reverend Brother for his candid and ingenuous labor; wherein, if he hit indeed the Doctors sense, he hath not only befriended me, for the rectifying of my mistakes, but also befriended the Church, in taking from the Antinomians the advantage which they seemed to have by the reputation of so Learned a man as Dr Twisse. For my own part, I owe more to his writings, for my information in those points, where many are now offended with me for my judgment, then to any writer in the world, except the Scriptures. In particular, it was he that did not only satisfy me in the point of Universal Redemption, but by clearer distinguishing between God's Preceptive and Decretive will, then I had found others do, did help me to discern better then before I had done, between the Physical and Ethical considerations in Theology, and did let in that light at so narrow a crevice, which hath not been a little serviceable to me since then. And indeed it was Doctor Twisse that first drew me out of the road that I was in, if I have in any particulars forsaken it. And the next advantage I had, was by reading Saltmarsh 's Flowings of Grace: which I saw so exceedingly taking both in the Country and the Army (where I then was) that I fell on the serious perusal and consideration of it: and its palpable errors were a most useful discovery to me of some contrary Truths, while I was endeavoring to confute him; so that when I considered of the justest answer to his conceits about Christ's Believing, Repenting and Obeying for us; it plainly lead me to the discerning of that necessity of the twofold Righteousness, which some inconsiderately quarrel at. And a long vacancy in deep weakness of body, presently succeeding the beginning of these thoughts, did much more enforce them then before.
This much more I must say concerning this present Confession. 1. The large citations of other men's words must needs seem tedious to many Readers, but I am necessitated to it, as the only answer to the Argument of singularity which I am charged with, and which seemeth the most effectual that they plead. And I hope the matter of those citations will prove worth the reading.
2. If any Brother understand not any word in my Aphorisms which is here interpreted, or mistake my sense about the Matetr of that Book, which is here more fully opened, I must expect that they interpret That by This. And if any one have so little to do, as to write against that Book (which is not unlikely) if he take the sense contrary to what I have here, and elsewhere since then published, I shall but neglect him as a contentious vain wrangler, if not a Calumniator.
If any will needs take anything in this Book to be rather a Retractation, then an Explication of what I have before said though I should best know my own meaning, yet do such commend me, while they seem to blame me: And for my part I never look to write that which shall have no need of correction, remembering how Augustine befooled one contrary minded; and I say as he in another place, Epist. 7. Marcell. pag. 13. In talibus quaestionibus non multum laboro: quia etsi defendi sententia mea liquida ration non potest, mea est; non ejus Authoris cujus sensum improbare fas non est, &c. Ego proinde fateor me▪ ex eorum numero esse conari, qui proficiendo scribunt, & scribendo proficiunt. Unde si aliquid vel incautius vel indoctius a me positum est, quod non solum ab aliis qui videre id possunt merito reprehendatur, verum etiam a meipso (quia & ego saltem postea videre debeo, si proficio nec mirandum est, nec dolendum, sed potius ignoscendum est & gratulandum; non quia erratum est, sed improbatum▪ Nam nimis perverse seipsum amat, qui & alios vult errare, ut error suus lateat. If any be yet offended after so much endeavor to satisfy them, it is against my will, and I say to them as Jerome, Tom. 1. de vita Cleric. ad Nepot. Aut nihil scribendum fuit, ne hominum Judicium subiremus, quod tu facere prohibuisti: aut scribentes cognoscere cunctorum adversum nos maledicorum tela torquenda: Quos obsecro ut quiescant, & desinant maledicere: non enim ut Adversariis, sed ut Amicis scripsimus: Nec invecti sumus in eos, qui peccant, sed ne peccent monuimus: Ne{que} in illos tantum sed in nosmetipsos severi Iudices fuimus.
The main discouragement that I find in writing of hard controversies, is, because there are so few of the people (to say nothing of the younger, or duller of the Ministry) that are able to make trial, and discern when a cause is well maintained, and when not: But a man that will confidently pour out words, how far so ever he Digress from the Truth or mark, is as soon believed, as he that giveth the soundest Reasons, saith Jerome▪ (Ubi supr. p. 14.) Nil tam facile quam vilem plebeculam & indoctam Concionem linguae volubilitate decipere; quae quicquid non intelligit, plus Miratur.
If after all this any Brother shall yet confidently charge me with error, I promise him to be diligent in my endeavors to know the Truth: and me thinks I may expect, that whoever so chargeth me, should in all reason have these Qualifications following.
1. That he be a man of a stronger Judgment, and more Discerning Head; and not one of those that Nazianz. describes Orat. 1. (and after, p. 453.) that think themselves wise enough to be Teachers or Contradict others, when they have got two or three words of Scripture: Nor such as have not wit for an ordinary business, and yet think that they can master the deepest Controversies. He that thinks to do this without a piercing wit, (as well as Grace) ordinarily, thinks to see without eyes.
2. I expect that he be one that hath longer and more diligently and seriously exercised himself in these studies, then I have done.
3. That he be one more free from prejudice and partiality then I am: who, I must needs say, have been deeply convinced of the evil of detaining any Truth in unrighteousness, upon any interest of a Party that is against it.
4. That he have more of the illumination of God's Spirit, which is the chief.
5. That he have a more sanctified heart, that he may not be led away with wrong ends, or blinded by his vices.
Usually all these are conjunctly necessary: but at le • st there must be so much of the chief, as may supply the want of the rest. And as in all these I unfeignedly lament my defectiveness, and doubt not but there are multitudes of Laborers in God's Vineyard, with whom in these respects, I am unworthy to be named; so it is these whose judgments I shall value; but for empty, confident, self-conceited ones, that know not what they talk against, I shall regard them as they deserve. I did not easily or rashly fix upon that which they mislike; I was once of their mind in some of those points; and I doubt not but they are verily persuaded that they are right: or else they would not be so zealous in the business. But as confident men as they, and perhaps as able, have seen Truth in some of these things, which they formerly reproached as errors: of whom I may say, as Austin of Paul (in their measure) Epist. 203. Prostratus • st ut excoecaretur, & excoecatus est ut mutaretur, mutatus ut mitteret • r, missus ut qualia fecerat in error, talia pro veritate p ••• retur. viz. to be reproached as erroneous, as they did by others. And for friends so to use the Truth and their Brethren is no news: Jerome, Nazianz. Chrysost. and who not of the worthyest Fathers were so used in their times? Saith, Nazianz. Orat. 26. p. 443. Atque ipse exigu •• & pauper sum Pastor, Pastoribusque aliis ut parce dicam, nondum gratus atque acceptus: quod rectore Judicio ac ration, an animi malevolentia, & contentionis studio, fiat, nescio: Enitar tamen quantum potero▪ daboque operam, ne gratiam divinitus acceptam premam ac occultem,—verum & veritatis doctrina vos erudia • ac per spiritum Concordes reddam. Et Orat. 32. p. 523. Lassus sum, dum & cum sermon atque invidia; & cum hostibus, & cum nostris, pugno. Illi pectora feriunt & minus assequuntur quod Cupiunt. (Nam qui aptas inimicitias gerit, facile caveri potest:) hi autem terga observant, & magis molesti sunt.
I am sensible of the trouble that I have put the Reader to buy this tedious Preface: But I remember that Austin Epist. 23. Bonifac. saith of his friend Nebridius, that he exceedingly hated a short Answer to a Great Question, and took it very ill of any that expected the like from him, and where he might be free, would manifest his indignation.
Let the Reader take notice that this Book was written before the last part of my Apology, yea most of it, before I heard of Mr. Crandons death, which was about a fortnight after I saw his Book: And therefore I make more mention of him then else I would have done. It hath (I know not on what impediments) stuck much longer in the Press then I expected.
The Printed sheets were perused by some Learned, Reverend men, whose Judgments I most highly valued; And I resolved and promised them, for the sake of Peace and Truth, to correct and reprint every sheet, where any material passage should be found, which they judged Erroneous: But upon perusal, they desire not the Alteration of any, but approve of the passing of it, as I sent it them.
One of these was that now-blessed man Mr. T. Gattaker, who lived not to peruse it all: but on the chief and most material part, he left me those brief Notes, which I have annexed to the end: And because it pleased▪ the Lord to make this his last work on earth, and to Conclude his Labors in the dictating of an affectionate Valediction and Benediction, which he sent to me with those Notes, I have adjoined these also; the Memory of his Name, and of his great Love and Respects, being to me so precious. Two other Letters of his I have adjoined also, wherein he was pleased of his own Accord to declare his Judgment of three other of my writings; which I oppose (as sufficient against the quarrelsome exceptions of Contenders. Had I not been confident that he desired not the keeping secret of these his thoughts, I should not have dared to make them public; nor would I be in the least injurious to the name which I so much honor, that thereby I might borrow Honor to my own. The Lord pardon all our failings and sanctify our imperfect labors to the good of his Church.
Rich. Baxter.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. 1. The Occasion of this writing.
Chap. 2. A true Confession of my Faith. Sect. 1. A General Confession. Sect. 2. A Particular Confession, containing the Fundamentals. Sect. 3▪ My subscription to the Assemblies lesser Catechism. Sect. 4▪ My Consent to the larger Catechism of the Assembly; supposing a Liberty of Expounding four Passages. Sect. 5. My Consent to the Assemblies Confession of Faith, supposing the Liberty of expounding six Passages, as is expressed. Sect. 6. My hearty Approbation of the Doctrine or Articles of the Synod of Dort, with the liberty of expounding but six words of small moment, wherein I am persuaded I miss not their sense: with a Profession of my dissent against the forcible Imposing of such large Confessions.
Chap. 3. A more full Account how much I ascribe to man's Qualifications, or Works of Inherent Righteousness, in the business of Justification, Acceptation, and Salvation: and what I deny to them. Sect. 3. The sum in seven Propositions, with the Scripture-words which enforce my Judgment. Sect. 4. My opinion of the Verbal differences, and 1. About the word Works. Sect. 6. About the word Merit. Sect. 7. More of my thoughts about the matter of Merit. Sect. 7. Of the words, Worthy, Reward, Righteous and Righteousness, Justify, Justification, Condition, making Righteous, Iudging According to Work • , Because of them, for them, &c.
Chap. 4. Additions to the former Confession, occasioned by the sight of Mr. Caryls Epistle to Mr. Crandons Volume: tendered to Mr. Caryl for his satisfaction in the points wherein he expresseth himself offended.
Chap. 5. Additions about the F • eedom of Believers from the curse of the Law: 1. Affirmatively. 2. Negatively, tend • ed to the said Mr. Caryl, for his satisfaction.
Chap. 6. Whether the fearless affirmations of Mr. Ey • e and Mr. Crandon be true or false, that the Papists maintain no other Merit then I do. Sect. 2. The Testimony of 25. Protestants. Sect 3. The Testimony of 40. Papists▪ besides six of the Moderate sou • der Papists. Sect 4. Instructions to young Student for right ju • ging of the P • pists Doctrine herein: and some of our Divines judgments in this business p • oduced, for avoided injurious mistakes and extremes.
Chap. 7. What it is that I mean by Antinomianism▪ Fourtie Articles of Antinomian, Libertine, and Famil • stical Doctrine, with the contrary Extreams, and the Truth in the middle▪
Chap. 8. My Reasons why I take Just • fication • y • aith as meant in Scripture, not to be the Justification of or in Cons ••• nce: but that in Right or Law-sense, Antecedent thereto. Sect. 1. The seeming difference, and real Agreement of the contrary-minded. Sect. 2. Fourty six Arguments from plain Texts of Scripture. Sect. 3. Twentie Arguments from the Nature of the thing, and the Analogy of Faith.
Chap. 9. Reasons why I judge that the Elect are not pardoned or justified from Eternity, nor at the time of Christ's death, nor while they are Infidels or Impenitent: Especially to prove that we did not Merit or satisfy Justice in Christ, but Christ did it in the person of a Mediator. Sect. 1. Two Arguments against Justification from Eternity, distinctly. How Mr. Owen extolls Christ's Merits. Sect. 2. How far we agree. Our difference about the terms. Scripture never saith, We are Justified before we believe; Nor Pardoned or Reconciled from Eternity. How far we may say men were Reconciled, or their sins purged, or▪ pardoned by Christ's death, before we were born, or believe. Sect. 3. Fourtie Arguments from Texts of Scripture against justification, absolution, or pardon before we believed, or were born. Sect▪ 4. Twent • e arguments more to the same purpose; specially that Christ paid not the very same which the Law required or that he did not represent our very persons in obeying or suffering so as that in the Account of God or the Law, we ourselves did obey or satisfy in Christ. Mr. Joh. Owen's Reasons examined, whereby he would prove that Unbelivers have Right to Justification, and the other Good things purchased by Christ: and that they died with Christ: Unbelievers are not absolved from the guilt of▪ sin, and the obligation to Death and Hell▪ as Mr. Owen supposeth them to be. Sect. 5. Two or three necessary Distinctions and Considerations for them that would escape the Antinomian delusions, which are proved destructive of the substance of Christian Religion.
Chap. 1 • . A Pill again Pre • udice, O • the charge of singularity refuted. Sect. 1. The sum of that part of my Doctrine which hath offended some Brethren, drawn into 5. Heads. Sect. 2. Fourteen Assertions of Protestants in Common recited, in which they ascribe as much to Works in point of Justification as I do, and in which those Divines maintain the same Doctrine, which in other (Scripture) terms offendeth them. Sect 3. An hundred Testimonies of Synods, and noted Protestant Writers, ascribing as much to Works as I, and acquitting me from the charge of singularity, some more largely and plainly, some more briefly and obscurely. Sect. 4. Some Passages of such as Dissent with some others.
An addition to the 11. Chap. part 3. of my Book of Rest, here affixed for them that have not the last Edition of that Book: It is concerning Mr. Kendals Digression about the Nature of saving-Grace.
Two Letters of Mr. Gatakers, containing his Judgment of my Method for Peace of Conscience. My Christian Concord, and Apology. As also his last farewell, with his Animadversions on this book.
ERRATA.
PAg. 22. l. 21, 22. for coelus r. coetus. p. 40. l. 30. for committed r. permitted. p. 41. l. 3. for that r. the, l. 15. for phrases r. praises, p. 42 l. 8. for referred, r. preferred. p. 45. l. 16. for define r. desire. p. 46. l. 7. after pardon, r. is. p. 77. l. 21. for Tho. r. Though, p. 77. l 16. for essem r. esse, and l. 26 r. mercedis. and l. 31. r. locationem, and l. 35. r. complexionem, p 81. l. 19. for better r. bitter. p 94. l. 31. r. Sohnium. p. 114. l. 2. for which • . while. p. 127. l 36. for Divines r. Divinity. p. 129. l. 7. for intercession r. intercision. p. 130. l. last, for of r. or. p. 137. l. 8. for uncio r. unico. p. 148. l. 22. for of r. as. p. 149. l. 7. for Chirgius r. Clingius. p. 171. Col. 3. l. 17. before Shrine, r. a Martyrs. p. 181 l. 6. Col. 2. for is r his p. 197. l. 28. for be not r. is. p 204. l. 28. blot out and. p. 205. l. 19 for may r. he may. p. 206. l. 29. for meditation r. mediation. p. 232. l. penult. for required r. reigned p. 249. l. 6: for that r. then▪ p. 254. l 8. r. Legatary, Donatary. p. 256. l. 14. for agent r. atente. and l. 32. r. obtinendi. and l. 37. r. comparandum, p. 257. l. 7. r. Cognito. p. 288 l. 3 for Church r. Ghost. p. 297 l. 14. r excepted. p. 298. l. 36. for mere r. more, p. 299. r. the matter, p. 305. l. 6. and 11 for licked r. ticed. p. 314. l. 29. r. Beumler. p. 321. l. 32. r. Good. p. 335. l. 2. r. part of p. 347. Col 2. l. 1. for our r. one.
CHAP. I.
The Occasion and Scope of this Writing.
IT is now about five years since I published a Book Entituled, Aphorisms of Justification, &c. which I let pass in hast, before I had well digested or perfected, being not likely to have much longer time on earth: I chose rather so to publish it, then to suppress it, that at least I might provoke others when I am dead to make a further discovery of the truth. It was the first that I published, and I was then a stranger to the dispositions of Divines, and simply thought that none would be offended with one that held the same Christian Doctrine▪ for attempting a clearer explication of it, though he differed from them in lesser things; yea, though he failed in his attempt, as long as he abhorred dividing from the Church: • thought I might have boldly said to Christian Ministers, as Justin Martyr did to Heathens, Apolog. 1. Fin These things we offer to your consideration: If they seem agreeable to Reason and Verity, honor them, but if they seem toys, as toys contemn them, but do not hostilely persecute them. But I am now a little better acquainted with the world, and the best part of the world then before I was. The Reasons of my publishing that book (at first drawn forth by the occasion of one Question, about the sense of Mat. 25.) were these: 1. A hope of clearer discovery of some common Truths, by dispelling some confusions, and some cloudy novel groundless distinctions; That so when truth was more clearly seen, it might be more deeply received, affectionately entertained, firmly retained, and successfully improved. 2. A strong conceit that I should take out of the hands of many adversaries (Papists, Pelagians and Libertines) some great advantages which formerly some have given them against us, and should clear in some measure, the way of a more effectual confutation of their Errors. Especially, I confess, mine eye was upon the Libertines, commonly called Antinomians, through the whole, being wakened to a compassion of many ignorant well meaning Christians, who were then following their delusions in a full career. 3. A hope also▪ I had that many Christians who had seemed to differ more then indeed they did, in these points, might be brought to an Agreement by the Evidence of truth; at least that mere verbal differences might not seem Real and Doctrinal.
But I quickly found that some thought too well, and some too ill of what I had written. Lest therefore I should prove a further offense to my Brethren, and a wrong to the Church; I desired those that thought it worth their labor to vouchsafe me their Animadversions, which I have spent much of these three last years in considering, that I might Correct whatsoever was discovered to be Erroneous, and give them an account of my Reasons of the rest. I have not only since suppressed that Book which did offend them, but also laid by those Papers of Universal Redemption which I had written, lest I should be further offensive. But I find all this gives no satisfaction. Some further course therefore I am obliged to take: For if the offense had been only taken and not given, yet Christian Charity binds me to do my best to remove it: But when I do freely confess that some part of the offense was given by me, by some indigested and obscure passages, and some over-sights in that book, I am much more bound to satisfy the offended, as far as is in my power to do.
To this end I have two sorts of men to address my speech to. 1. Those Divines that go the way of the Libertines (commonly called Antinomians) in whole or in part: For these I perceive are most deeply offended with me. 2. Some Orthodox sober Divines, who are offended with me for some lesser differences, wherein I seem to them to affect singularity, and too easily to depart from the Common judgment of the Reformed Churches.
1. I do confess (being once half ensnared myself in the opinions of Justification before Faith, and that Justification by Faith, was but in foro Conscientiae, &c. ) I have a strong apprehension of the danger of those Doctrines, and their concomitants: and that upon four grounds. 1. Either I am exceedingly mistaken, or else they do as directly and fully subvert the main scope of the Doctrine of Christ, as any Errors that I know of in England, that are maintained by any considerable number of men who have any great appearance of Piety and Sobriety. Were England well rid but of Libertinism, Socinianism and Popery, it were a happy Land: But the first party do more dangerously insinuate with the weaker sort of Godly people then either of the latter, by the advantage of the name of Free-grace, and by their pretences to a singular extolling of Christ, and by their declaiming against legal Preachers, and against the advancement of our own Works or Righteousness, and especially by leading men in so easy a way, which flesh and blood hath so little against, as being too consistent with men's Carnal Interest. 2. The evident tendency also of these licentious Doctrines to a licentious Life, and to the destruction of Godliness, I confess doth increase my detestation of them. He that seeth not in the face of them written, an opposition to Mortification and Watchfulness, and the life of Godliness, seeth not with my eyes. 3. The experience which we have seen of the real Issue, and sad effects of this licentious Doctrine, I confess hath further confirmed me against it. I am none of those that shut my eyes against the workings of Providence, nor yet against the discoveries of Causes in their Effects. Three black Clouds of Witnesses we have of this. 1. The unhappy miscarriages, and shameful lives of those Libertines that lived in England before these late years of trouble. Whereof both London, and the Grundletonians in York-shire, and Arthingtons Seduction, with the whole story of Hacket and Coppinger, can give too full Testimony. 2. The sad miscarriages of this Sect in New-England, whererof see Mr. Weld his Rise and ruin of Antinomianism in N. E. 3. Their late Actions in old England, since (uniting with the spirit of Anabaptistry, the far smaller evil) they have proceeded as far as Ranting, hath further shown what spirit they are of, to those that will see the Sun at Noon-day: Nor have the Public transactions or attempts of the more subtle among them, much honored their Principles in the eyes of the observing and judicious through the Land. 4. And (which I have oft mentioned, and will do while I can speak) the Miracles of God against them in New England were so real a Testimony from heaven, that I am resolved to take them for a Decision of that controversy, being conjunct with so full a Testimony of the word. Three Sects did all lately imbody together, Anabaptists, Separatists and Antinomians, and so made up one, (though some of the first sort disclaimed the last, and went the Pelagian way:) And what man dare obscure the witness that God hath given against them, unless he will be found a fighter against God? I profess, for my part, I am fully satisfied from plain Scripture against them, though I had seen no further witness; But yet should I shut mine eyes against such a Testimony as God hath given in New-England by those Monsters, and in Old-England, by multitudes of fouler Monsters, even Ranters, Quakers, Seekers and Blasphemers, I should sure be guilty of a heinous sin. God doth not ordinarily thus appear; but very rarely, and in great extremities, and against those that his soul doth deeply detest. And to wink at such wonders, what is it but to despise God in the dreadfullest of his works? They that can read the book of Providence, and expound it so well as some pretend, and yet overlook such Providences as these, shall be no Tutors of mine, in the Exposition of this blessed Book.
These Reasons having excited my Zeal against this Sect above many others, I have accordingly judged it my duty to bend myself against them in all my writings: Especially when I saw how greedily multitudes of poor souls did take the bait, and how exceedingly the Writings and Preachings of Saltmarsh and many of his fellows did take with them. Upon this I perceive the men that in any measure go that way, are enraged against me: How to appease them I know not. I would as willingly know the truth as some of them, if I could. Sure I am, I have as much Reason. My soul should be as precious to me; Christ should be as much valued: Grace should be as much magnified: Self should be as much denied. I am as deeply beholden to Christ and Free-Grace as most poor sinners in the world: And should I vilify or wrong them, for an Opinion, or I know not what I Every man that is drawn from Christ, is drawn by some contrary prevailing Interest: What interest should draw me to think meanly of my Savior, or his Free-Grace? For Free-Remission alone without any condition, or an Eternal Justification; I do not perceive but that my very Carnal part would fain have it to be true. I have flesh as well as they; and if I am able to discern the pleadings or inclinations of that flesh, it runs their way in contradiction to the Spirit. And the Lord knows I have as little reason to extol my own Righteousness, or place my confidence in Works and Merits, as other men have. I must truly say, The Lord holdeth my sins much more before mine eyes then my Good-Works: The one are Mountains to me, the other I can scarce tell whether I may own in propriety, without many Cautions and Limitations. I have therefore no Carnal interests of my own that I can possibly discover, to lead me against the way of these men, or Engage me to contend against them. Yet am I not able to forbear. I confess I am an irreconcilable Enemy to their Doctrines, and so let them take me: I had as live tell them so, as hide it. The more I pray God to illuminate me in these things, the more am I animated against them. The more I search after the truth in my Studies, the more I dislike them. The more I read their own Books, the more do I see the Vanity of their Conceits: But above all, when I do but open the Bible, I can seldom meet with a leaf that is not against them. And what further means I should use, besides Prayer, Study, Reading their Books, and Reading the Scripture, I do not remember. If they blame my Will, I cannot find any Byas against them, from fleshly interest (as I said) but from spiritual. Nor am I able to Believe what men would have me, nor whatsoever I would myself. My will hath not the full command of my Belief. If they blame my understanding, I will blame it too, but I cannot clear it. Only I am resolved to wait on God in the use of his means, and by the help of his Grace, to search as diligently for the Truth as I can, and to Redeem my time thereto as much, and spare my f • esh as little, as will stand with my life, and a freedom from the sin of self-murder. And if yet I must differ, there's no remedy.
The indignation of these exasperated men, hath found out of late a strange kind of vent. To be revenged on me for calling them Antinomians, they have resolved to call me Arminian, Socinian, Papist, and Jesuit; Yea, and as if they were in good sadness, to persuade the world that by Antinomians, I mean Anti-papists and that I am indeed a down-right Papist, and of the grosser sort too, and that I subtly endeavor the propagation of Popery, and all my pretences to the contrary are but Jesuitical dissembling: And in particular, that there is no Papists, that speak more for Merits then I do. To this purpose it seemed good to Mr. Eyre of Salisbury to write in his Book against Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge, on which I have sent him my Admonition: In which he commendeth one Mr. Crandon that was writing against me, whose writing is now come forth in the light: Such a piece as I confess my eyes never saw before: The lively picture of the wiser sort of Libertines: Expressing much of that in Print, which the Ranters do in transient actions: so much palpable darkness, so many mistakes of my sense, so many errors, and so much presumption, is there congested; But above all, so many notorious falsehoods in matter of fact, as I do profess I never saw in one volume to my knowledge, either of Jesuit, or any the vilest Heretic. I would be loath to bestow my time in numbering them, till my Arithmetic be better; Only I will say, that I yet have not observed one leaf in all that great Volume that hath not many: How many hundred then may such a bulk contain? What an unsavory, uncleanly task would it be to Reply to such a man, if I had so little wit, and so many words and hours as such a work requires? And indeed it could not be better in matter of truth, when the whole Volume is animated with one falsehood, as the soul of it; That is, that I am a Papist: This is the whole from first to last: If you have this, in the dress of a Billings-gate Dialect, you have all. Hence is the man carried, even where I speak that which he cannot reprehend, to enter into the secrets of my soul, and lay open my heart, for the expounding of my lines, and to tell them over and over that I do but subtly aequivocate and dissemble; I say one thing, but I mean or think another, so that he hath written a Volume much in the confutation of my most secret thoughts; yea, of such as he feigneth, contrary to the full expression of my writings. I confess when I read the first leaf that I opened at, it seemed to me a sad, yet for the gravity of the Fiction, a ridiculous Object; to see the man come upon the Stage, and act his part so confidently and seriously, as if he did verily think I were a Papist indeed. That I am a Papist, or that I must be an Antinomian, are equally credible to me: And if there be no middle way between those two, I confess I am I know not where. I deny not but all Mr. Eyres commendations of this man may be true: But then if voluminous slanders, and grossest falsehoods, considerately Printed and Published, may consist with Grace, and such eminency of Grace too in the leaders of the flocks, I would advise these Brethren hereafter to consider whether they should not be very compassionate to others, and how they do Judge of the qualification of their Church-members. To cast out or censure a member for swearing or lying once or twice, when the Pastor may slander and rail voluminously, is scarce equal dealing. Truly when I read this man's Book, it forced me to say, Oh what a depraved nature hath man! what a dark understanding! what a deceitful heart! what a sad case are our poor people in, when their guides are in such darkness and contention! what a patient God have we! and what reason therefore to be patient with one another?
If any expect that I should particularly Reply to that Book, I must say of that and of divers others that have been lately published against me ( Fisher, Keys, Hagger: ) my time is like to be but short on earth: I live in pain and languishing, and expectations of my change, and therefore I dare not wast so short, so precious time on such an employment; Nor dare I give such an account of those hours to God, which he hath given me for better and more useful works. If any object, that the ignorance of common people is such, that confidence, and railing, and slanders will take with them, as if they were valid Arguments, and therefore have need of as diligent confutation; I answer, it is not in my power to cure the ignorance of such people, nor the slanderous tongues or pens of such Writers; And if I must Write as long as slanderers will make me work, or ignorant men need it, then I shall have work enough to do, and my labors be at the command of every man's Vices. If any object, that I owe it to my own Reputation, I Ans. I Write not for myself, nor for so low an end; But for the good of others. And whereas some say, that I am bound to vindicate my Reputation, that I may not hinder other men's profiting by my labors. I Answ. 1. If God take away my Reputation, he will no more expect I should serve him by it, then he will expect I should serve him by health or wealth when he hath taken them away: Nor doth he expect that I should be so solicitous for its recovery as to neglect any greater work the while. 2. God hath permitted the Columniator to play his part so grossly, and to assert those things voluminously and confidenrly which contradict themselves, and which all that know me, know to be false, that I think such a tongue is not much capable of diminishing a man's Reputation, nor is it any way needful to Vindicate it from such.
Yet though I will not give a particular answer to any such Writings as these are, I shall against the whole substance and scope of the undertaking anon prove against Mr. Crandon, and Mr. Eyre, that the Papists give more to works then I do, and I shall give them the Confession of my faith, that they may truly know how much I give to them.
2. But first I must take notice of the other sort, who have been offended in the respects forementioned at my Doctrine, and whom I am more obliged to satisfy; and because the things they blame me for, are 1. Some mistakes in Doctrine. 2. Affectation of singularity. 3. Or at least too easy dissenting from the judgment of the Orthodox; For the first, I am left uncapable of satisfying them: For change my judgment I cannot, till evidence of truth do it: And if I should, it would not serve turn: For then I should offend all on the other side, who are for that Doctrine which I deliver: So that man-pleasing is a frivolous; yea, an impossible work. And to give them the Reasons of my judgment, will but offend them more; for I find men are impatient of contradiction, and of uttering that which is against their opinions But to go as far as I am able to satisfy both these offended parties, both the Heterodox slanderers, and the Orthodox sober Godly Divines (I mean so many of them as are offended▪ for very many I know are not) I shall now in order perform these several things following. 1. I will make a true confession of my faith, by which you may Judge of Mr. Eyres, and Mr. Crandons charge of Popery, Socinianism, Arminianism, &c. 2. To the General Confession I will add a more particular account, how much I give to man's Works, and how much I deny to them. 3. Because Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Crandon affirm so boldly, that by Antinomians, I mean Antipapists, (that they might get the honorable Title of the Protestant Reformed Religion put upon their Opinions) I shall tell you what it is that I mean by Antinomianism. 4. Because they contend so much for justification before faith, and that Justification by faith is but in foro Conscientiae, or terminated in Conscience, I shall give my Reasons against both those Assertions. 5. I shall show how modestly Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Crandon do aver that the Papists (yea none of the Papists) give no more to Works or Merits then I. 6. I shall prove that I am not so singular, as is supposed, and that I do give no more to Works, then the Reformed Churches and Divines ordinarily do; by a large recital of their own words. And in the performances of these six things lies all the satisfaction that I yet understand myself able to give to those that are offended: Supposing what I have said in the Preface.
CHAP. II.
A true Confession of my Faith.
SECT. I.
BEcause Mr. Crandon is pleased through his Book to affirm with such confidence that I do subtly equivocate and dissemble my judgment, hiding the worst, and meaning one thing when I speak another, and so leaves me uncapable by any Profession, Protestations or Oaths, of satisfying any who are of his mind; and as audaciously arrogate the Prerogative of God, in knowing and judging the heart of man, even against his own Professions; I shall therefore premise only this general profession to them who will believe it, and they that will not may choose. I will never worship and serve that God, that I do not believe to be able and willing to bear me out in his service; and save me harmless, and see that I be no loser by my owning him and his will. The God whom I serve I am sure is both able and willing. I will never serve a God that I have cause to be ashamed of. To be ashamed of him, is so far to deny him to be God. Nor will I ever be of that Religion which gives men leave to lie, and to deny it: My Religion doth not: To deny it therefore, is so far to disclaim and renounce it: Therefore so far as I deny it, so far I am not of that Religion. I believe that no man shall be saved by the Christian Religion that will not lay down his life rather then deny it: Much less he that will not let go the favor and esteem of men: and especially he that prefers his credit with such a man as Mr. Crandon, before his Religion, hath sure very low thoughts of that Religion, and mean expectations from it, and may well look that his Reward should be answerable. So much for Preface.
1. I Do Believe the Holy Canonical Scriptures, and all things therein contained to be infallibly true, as being the Word of God. And I do Believe it to be a sufficient and perfect Rule or Law, needing no Additions of Tradition, or Human Testimony to supply its defects, though it suppose some Tradition and Human Testimony as necessary to its Promulgation and Explication.
I suppose this single Confession freeth me from the charge of Infidelity, and of Popery: For an Infidel believes not the Scripture, and a Papist believes it to be but part of God's Word, and Tradition the other part; and upon that ground they let in all their inventions and Will-worship. And seeing the main point wherein we differ from the Papists, is in maintaining the sufficiency of the Scripture, I suppose I need not add any Creed or other Confession as necessary to be subscribed, as if this word alone were an insufficient Test, to try by who is Orthodox, and of the right Religion. So that I think I have in this made a sufficient Confession, did not men's misapprehensions require more.
Object. The Papists believe the Scripture.
Answ. Blessed be God for it: But they believe not its sufficiency, but take it, as I said, to be but part of God's Word.
Object. The Socinians and Arminians believe the sufficiency of Scripture.
Answ. So long there is the more hope of their reduction. But they believe not some plain particular Doctrines of Scripture: The Socinians believe not the Godhead of Christ, or the Holy Ghost, though the first be oft in terms, and the latter at least in sense, expressed in the Scripture: Nor do they believe Christ's satisfaction: Therefore they do not believe the Doctrine of the Scriptures, though they believe in general that the Scripture is true. If any will prove that I deny any Doctrine of that word which in general I believe, I will revoke it when I see it so proved: In the mean time I protest, that it is my resolution to search as impartially after the true meaning of the word as I can, and that I would fain know the mind of God therein, though it cost me the utmost pains, and the loss of men's estimation and favor, and though my greatest Temptation to partiality in my studies doth lie in my loathness to dissent from Godly Divines, whom I most highly value and honor, and whose love I more esteem then any other men's; Yet, by the Grace of God, I resolve as faithfully as I can, to resist even this Temptation also, and to lay open my soul to the teachings of Christ by his Word and Spirit.
But because it is expected that there be a more particular profession of the several Doctrines contained in this Word; and because I confess such a Profession very fit and necessary in other respects, (it being not every word in Scripture that is of flat necessity to Salvation, it is very fit that those which be so, should distinctly and explicitly be believed) I shall descend to such particulars. And because the sum of my Belief for Assent and Consent, is expressed in our late Worcester-shire Profession of faith, I shall here recite it (because it is but short) with the change of one word for abbreviation: Supposing the Apostles Creed.
SECT. II.
2. I Believe that there is one only God; The Father, Infinite in Being, Wisdom, Goodness and Power: the Maker, Preserver and Disposer of all things, and the most Just and Merciful Lord of all.
I Believe that mankind being fallen by sin from God and happiness, under the wrath of God, the curse of his Law, and the power of the Devil, God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son to be their Redeemer, who being God, and one with the Father, did take to him our nature, and became man, being conceived of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary, and born of her, and named Jesus Christ; and having lived on earth without sin, and wrought many Miracles for a witness of his truth, he gave up himself a Sacrifice for our sins, and a Ransom for us, in suffering death on the Cross: and being Buried, he Rose again the third day, and afterward ascended into heaven, where he is Lord of all in Glory with the Father: And having Ordained that all that truly Repent and Believe in him, and love him above all things, and sincerely obey him, and that to the death, shall be saved, and they that will not shall be damned, and commanded his Ministers to Preach the Gospel to the world; he will come again and raise the bodies of all men from death, and will Judge all men according to what they have done in the body; and the Righteous shall go into life Eternal, and the rest into everlasting punishment.
I believe that God the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, was sent from the Father by the Son, to Inspire and Guide the Prophets and Apostles, that they might fully reveal the Doctrine of Christ: and by multitudes of evident Miracles and wonderful gifts, to be the great witness of Christ and of the truth of his holy word, and also to dwell and work in all that are drawn to believe, that being first joined to Christ their Head, and into one Church, which is his body, and so pardoned and made the sons of God, they may be a peculiar people sanctified to Christ, and may mortify the flesh, and overcome the world and the Devil, and being zealous of good works, may serve God in Holiness and Righteousness, and may live in the special Love and Communion of the Saints, and in hope of Christ's coming, and of Everlasting Life.
I do heartily take this one God, for my only God and my chief good; and this Jesus Christ for my only Lord, Redeemer and Savior; and this Holy Ghost for my Sanctifier; and the Doctrine by him revealed, and witnessed by his Miracles, and now contained in the holy Scriptures, I do take for the Law of God, and the Rule of my faith and life. And Repenting unfeignedly of my sins, I do resolve through the Grace of God sincerely to obey him, both in holiness to God, and Righteousness to men, and in special love to the Saints, and Communion with them, against all the temptations of the Devil, the World, and my own Flesh, and this to the Death.
I do also take the ten Commandments for a general standing Rule of obedience: And the Lord's Prayer for a perfect rule for prayer, most admirable for Comprehension of matter, and exactness of Method. And I believe that Christ hath instituted Baptism for our entrance into his Church, and the Lord's Supper for our Confirmation; and hath appointed ministers to be the teachers of his Church, and to guide it in Concord, according to his Word.
THis is my Religion: This I profess, subscribe and stand to. If any man ask what Religion I am of, hither I refer him. If this be not enough for him, but he must needs have yet a larger profession, or else he will not account me Orthodox, let him take his course, and judge of me as he please. He that professeth this, and lives accordingly, shall by me be taken for a good Christian, by what name or title soever men call him. I say as Hilary, quod non per difficiles quaestiones ad vitam beatam nos ducat Deus. If the Church of Rome will profess but this much, and not subvert it when they have done by evident contradiction, I will acknowledge them as Brethren of the same Religion with me; and if they will unite upon these terms, I will unite with them: Though if they add superfluities which do not subvert this Doctrine, I will not join with them in any of those Additions; but let them build their stubble alone for me.
As to myself, if any man will prove that I hold anything contrary to one word of this Confession, I will presently renounce it. In the mean time, if I should hold anything contrary to it, it is ignorantly, and upon supposition that it is not contrary. And therefore no man can charge me with the not believing anything here contained: For I renounce anything in my writings that is contrary to this, though unknown: and if I cannot hold any other of my Opinions, and this confession both, I disclaim all such Opinions, and will let go them, and not this.
Thus much might well serve as a discovery of my Belief, were it not that prejudice and jealousy requires more: I add therefore.
SECT. III.
3. I Do heartily approve of the shorter Catechism of the
Assembly, and of all therein contained: and I take it for the best Catechism that ever I yet saw, and the Answers continued for a most excellent sum of the Christian faith and Doctrine, and a fit Test to try the Orthodoxness even of Teachers themselves.
I Know the faith of many in these latter Ages of the world is more extensive then intensive, grasping at much in the Object, but little and feeble in the act, and infirmly radicated in the Subject. These men will think that I am yet too short to be accounted Orthodox, and that in embracing this Catechism, it is but a childish faith that I embrace. But I am bold to tell them these things by way of Answer. 1. Theologia est scientia Affectiva-practica. God hath laid more on the heart and hand, and less on the head, as to the extent of knowledge, then such men take notice of, We may find us work enough, yea and make a happy progress and growth, by an increase of our firmness, and clearness in the apprehension of the common truths, and an improvement of them on the heart and life. And it had been happy for the Church in all Ages, especially this, if they had looked more after this kind of growth in knowledge, (as to intension, affection, and execution) and less gaped after new Light and Revelation, and an extensive increase. Though yet I would have none under-value God's grace in this kind of increase, nor neglect any due means for the attaining of it. 2. I would have these men that have such a swelled belief, to compare the Assemblies shorter Catechism, not only with the Epistles which the Apostles wrote to particular Churches, but with all the Confessions of Faith that were made for four hundred years after Christ in the Church; and see if any of them used a more extensive form? Nay, all the Creeds and Confessions of the Church set together for many hundred years (except the Scriptures) were not comparable to this, for fullness and exactness of order and expression. Only in the point of the Mystery of the Trinity, you may find many more copious, and wordy, as urged to it by the several Heresies of those times. But whether they are therefore ever the more excellent, I will not presume to censure. Nay, what talk I of Creeds and Confessions, when you may read many and many Volumes of the Fathers that contain not so much of the body of Theology, as this Catechism. I speak not this in any contempt or diminution of the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers and first Ages of the Church: I do in several other respects (for their reverend Antiquity, their better opportunity to know the way of the Apostles in matters of fact, &c.) prefer them before any Writings of these times, and so give them the Preeminence secundum quid; but simpliciter, and for the innate worth of the Writings themselves, I prefer the latter, and specially this in question much before them.
3. Further let the Objectors consider whether this were not the first corrupting of the Church and the Christian Doctrine, by being, as I may say, Orthodox over-much, and making too strict paths for other men to walk in, and enlarging the borders of their Belief too far, and condemning all that entertained not the Notio • s of some. Also whether this were not the great cause of all the sad divisions that in all Ages have distracted and disturbed the Church, and proved the greatest disgrace and hindrance to our Religion. The Quartoderimani, the Audiani, and many more Heretics, might well have gone for Catholics, had it not been for this Diotrephes. And will no experience warn us? 4. Nay, consider whether this be not the very disease of the Roman Church, and the mark of that beast, to obtrude their superfluities and swelled Confessions on others? Had the Trent Creed but broke off about the middle, (at the end of the Nicene or Constinopolita • e Creed) we had been all agreed in matter of Doctrine.
I have heard divers object, that this is but the trick of all Heretics that hold somewhat which dare not see the light, and therefore they must either take up with the bare Scripture Expressions, or if they yield to any Confessions, they must be short and general, that they discover not, and contradict not their Errors: and specially the Socinians are guilty of this. Answ. 1. I might as truly say, this is the Objection of the Papists, to charge an insufficiency on the expressions of Scripture, and make it the property of Heretics to appeal only to the Scripture: And thus we may fling Popery and Socinianism in one another's faces, with more spleen then wit. 2. Certainly many such Divines have done more by such indiscreet Objections, to strengthen that unhappy Sect (the Socinians) then they could ever have done for themselves. When men plead reason for Christianity and Scripture Authority, they say, It is Socinianism: when we plead for the sufficiency of Scripture alone, and appeal to it; they say, This is Socinianism too. Make the World believe once that the Socinians have reason and Scripture on their side; that is, the Light and Law of Nature, and the Light and Law of supernatural Revelation, and who would not turn Socinian? Its pity that these men can find no Arguments to use against Socinians, but the very same which is the Papists Goliath against the Reformed Churches and their Doctrine.
5. I will add this much more for your consideration. Our Divines have hitherto observed, that it is a suspicious sign that any affection or course is not of God, which nature is very prone to; and that the contrary is of God which nature is backward to. Though I know this Rule needs some limitations, yet I think it not unuseful in such cases as this. I have ever observed that a violent Passion called Zeal for a man's opinions, which he accounts Orthodox, is so easy and natural, that there needs little means to kindle it: Nay, all the means that can be used will scarce allay the inordinate rage of it: But a Zealous love of God, and delight in him, and a Zeal for holiness, and against sin, and a Zealous love to God's Truths as they hold forth Christ and Glory, and guide us to duty, this is so contrary to the nature of man, that no means is sufficient to excite it. O how easily without Grace, and against Grace do Carnal Ministers, and professors make a huge bussel in the world for their opinions, compassing Sea and Land to make a Proselyte! they will ride and go with unwearied diligence to propagate their opinions; perhaps some of them true, (though as usually false) Truly I have wondered many a time what it should be, that animates such men with so implacable a thirst, to make all others of their own mind, that they care not to venture all they have for it; yea, to subvert Kingdoms, and cast off natural affection to their nearest friends. It is no more love to Christ and his word, and will, then others have: For they are cold enough in obeying his will, and venture to disobey him more easily then others. Indeed it is Idolatrous pride. Every man naturally being his own Idol, he would have all others bow down and worship him, and would have the glory of perfect light, and infallibility, and have his judgment be the Rule of all other men's, and would be a Lawgiver to the world, that is, would be God: I know God's truth cannot too much be loved: But I know withal, that a proud affectation of the honor of knowing more then others, and being better acquainted with the secrets of God, is a thing that a man may get without Grace, but cannot get down without Grace. From whence it comes to pass, that the worst sort of men are often the most Zealous and violent contenders for that which they call the Orthodox Doctrine, when yet the affectionate and practical improvement of the very Creed, they do abhor. Witness the doleful state of the present Church of Rome, which hath so many hundred Jesuits and others that wholly devote their lives to the propagation of their opinions, which they call, and take to be, the Catholic Religion, and Orthodox Doctrine: Witness the Fire and Fagot, the Inquisitions, the bloody Massacres, by which this fire of Zeal for Opinions, hath found vent, and made its eruptions. And though it too ordinarily falls out that the pretenders to Orthodoxness are not the most Orthodox, and the most erroneous are readiest to cry down Errors, yet no doubt, but a carnal mind may make God's own precious truths the occasion of this forementioned sin, and may hate the Communion of Saints, even when he is Zealous for the Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins, or the Resurrection of the body.
But yet I am not so singular as to make this a pretence for my own Errors; and therefore to give fuller satisfaction, I further add.
SECT. IV.
4. I Have perused the larger Catechism of the Assembly, and judge it a most excellent sum of Divinity: and so much the more excellent, in that it is sparing in the difficult, and more abstruse part, and most full in the practical part: And I find no word that I dissent from, so I may have leave but to interpret four words, as followeth.
1. WHere it is said, that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ, as the second Adam, and in him, with all the Elect. I understand it of the Genus of the Covenant, one species being made with Christ, and another with man, and not as if it were one and the same Covenant in specie that was made with Christ and with man: though I acknowledge that the promise made to Christ, contained the Salvation of his Elect as the matter of it.
2. Where it is said: Nor as if the Grace of faith, or any act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification: 1. I understand it thus, and so assent to it, that our faith is not imputed to us, as being instead of a perfect Righteousness of obedience, to the ends as it was required by the Law of Works, nor is our faith the matter, or the meritorious cause of the Remission of our sin, our right to Salvation. I think this is the meaning of the Reverend Assembly (if I may think that they had all one meaning) and that in sense I differ not from them. 2. But I will never subscribe these words, nor any like them, without the liberty of an explication, when they are expressly in terminis, contrary to the Scripture, and must have such an interpretation to reconcile the sense. Nor will I ever approve of such passages in Catechisms and Confessions, as shall determine a point expressly against the words of God, though Heretics might abuse those words; but would rather distinguish, and show in what sense faith is not imputed for Righteousness, then flatly and simply to say; It is not, when God saith, it is. Else we shall give the adversary the greatest advantage that he can desire or expect; when he shall show those words in Scripture which we flatly deny: And hereby we shall lay the greatest temptation before the ignorant, that know not how to interpret those Scriptures. And that I have not missed the sense of the Assembly, I am induced to believe, by what that Learned Reverend man Mr. Gataker, who was one of them, hath wrote in Explication of this controversy against Saltmarsh Shad. Pag. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57. to which I wholly subscribe (expounding the word Instrument, as I have declared) And where he shows that the difference is but merely Verbal, so far is it from being in Fundamental Doctrine.
3. Where the next words say, but only as it is an Instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his Righteousness, as • note that they say not that it is an Instrument of Justifying us, so I understand them thus, as it is the Moral reception of Christ and Righteousness freely given, improperly called an Instrument: and that they speak of that aptitude in faith, for which it was chosen to this office, supposing its being a condition of the Covenant, or Gift, as its nearest Interest. If I have hit their sense, I assent to this.
4. Where it is said, The word of God is to be Preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office, I understand it only of that sort of Preaching which is proper to Ministers, believing that there is also a Preaching which a Master may use in his Family, and other Christians occasionally: and herein I doubt not but I hit their sense.
By the Spirits that I have been haunted with, and the measure that I have received, I am forced to expect, that some should here charge me with taking an occasion to quarrel with the Assembly, or show my own conceited wisdom, in the correcting of their works. But I appeal from unconscionable calumniators, to the righteous Judge. I so highly reverence that Assembly, that I think this Nation, since the Apostles days, had never any that excelled it for Piety, and Ability: and I doubt not, but the frustration of much of their labor lies heavy on some, that yet make light of it. But with such e • vious and censorious persons as I have to deal, I find myself in the case of Poggius Countryman with his Ass (they that would laugh may read the Fable; but I am serious:) I am cast into an impossibility of escaping their censures Should I have professed my Assent, without these explications; I should wrong my Conscience. Should I have said nothing of this Catechism, they would have concluded that I dissented in some weighty points, and durst not subscribe it. I considered these, and chose rather to cast myself on the smaller censure, then the greater; hereby manifesting that it is a small matter, or nothing, wherein I dissent.
The like I must say of the Assemblies Confession of faith: Some have told me, If I be Orthodox, they expect my Assent to that: But without some explications I cannot Assent, which will give the same occasion of censure to these men: and if I wholly pass it by, they will surmise that it is for greater matters that I refuse. I will therefore in this also venture on the lesser inconvenience, seeing one is become unavoidable.
SECT. V.
5. I Have perused oft the Confession of the Assembly, and verily judge it the most excellent for fullness and exactness that I have ever read from any Church; And though the truths therein being of several degrees of Evidence and Necessity, I do not hold them with equal clearness, confidence or certainty; and though some few points in it are beyond my reach, yet I have observed nothing in it contrary to my judgment, if I may be allowed these Expositions following.
1. CH 3. sect. 6. & ch. 8. sect. 8. which speak against Universal Redemption, I understand not of all Redemption, and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man's sins, and satisfying God's Justice; but of that special Redemption proper to the Elect, which was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interpretation, I must herein dissent: and if this Confession was intended for a Test to all that should enter into, or exercise the Ministry, I hope it was never the mind of that Reverend Assembly to have shut out such men as Bishop Usher, Davenant, Hall, Dr. Preston, Dr. Staughton, Mr. William Fenner, Dr. Ward, and many more excellent English Divines, as ever this Church enjoyed, who were all for General Redemption, though not for an equal general Redemption: to say nothing of the Divines of France, Breme, and Beroline, and other Foreigners that go this way.
2. About the instrumentality, and non-imputation of Faith, ch. 11. sect. 1, 2. I must have the same indulgence as I desired about the Catechism, for exposition.
3. Where our certainty of salvation is called an Assurance of Faith, ch. 18. sect. 2. I understand it participative & causaliter, that Faith is an eminent cause in the production of our Assurance, and Assurance a fruit of Faith, but not that it is strictly de fide, that is, a truth of supernatural Divine Revelation propounded to be believed, as I have fullier expressed my thoughts to Master Blake. And because Authority in such a case will do more with some then my Reasons, I refer them to the British Divines in the Synod of Dort, who speak fully and excellently to this point, in their Suffrage 2. • rtic. 5. de perfev. certit. quoad nos Thes. 3. explicat. 1. pag. 198. part 2. (Impress. 1620. fol.)
4. Whereas in chap. 19. and also in the larger Catechism, (which I forgot to mention before) it is expressed that the promise of life upon fulfilling the Law, is still in being; I understand it only, that such a promise is on record still in the Bible, as having been once in force; but I judge it now to be no promise, but to be ceased, Cessante materia, the thing made its Condition (perfect obedience) being not only of moral but natural impossibility, as soon as mankind was once sinful; so that God is not, nor can be now obliged by that promise, and it is now no promise, though the preceptive part, and the penal or Comminatory part remain still: For we cannot disoblige ourselves, though we may, as it were, disoblige the Promiser.
5. Where it is said, ch. 21. sect. 7. that by a positive, moral and perpetual Commandment, binding All men in all Ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, I understand it only of a Virtual Obligation, as much as belongs to the Law, as enacted before promulgation, but not of a true actual obligation. For no Law can bind till it is promulgate; and positives are not promulgated by Nature▪ therefore not to all men in all ages; therefore they bind not all men in all ages.
6. Where it is said ch. 25. sect. 1. that the Catholic Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the Elect that have been, are, or shall be, &c.
1. I understand it not of the Church, as now existent, but as it shall be in its perfection at the end of the world, when all the Elect shall be Called; or else as it now containeth only so many of the Elect as are Called. For otherwise the Elect are no Members of the Church, as Elect, before their Calling and union with Christ: As Ames Medull. truly noteth, Ecclesia est coelus vocatorum, and is not to be defined coelus Electorum.
2. I understand those words, which is Invisible, as distinguishing the Church as invisible from the Church as visible, and not as expository, as defining the Catholic Church to be so invisible (in respect of Faith) as not to be also visible (in respect of profession.) For I conceive that Christ hath one Universal Visible Church, called one by the Unity of their profession, though not for any visible Head on earth, whether personal, or collective, Pope or General Council.
And now I leave to Mr. Crandon and others to consider, whether a Jesuit, a Papist, a Socinian, an Arminian, will consent to this copious Confession of the Assembly, with these Expositions or limitations, as I have here done? Or whether they will make all the Assembly to be Papists, Socinians or Arminians? I truly profess, I take the labors of the Assembly, especially these three pieces now mentioned, for the best Book, next my Bible, in my Study: However the Libertines, and other giddy Sectaries of these times have despised them, as if they were childish toys: And though I have read over the exceptions of one William Parker, against the Assemblies Confession of Faith, which whosoever reads, may see with half an eye that the Author was a Papist. He sets up the main body of Popish Doctrine; only instead of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, he draws people to receive that Doctrine from some new inspired Prophets: but if these cheaters could draw people once to receive the Doctrine, it were easy to disgrace those pretended Prophets, and to take them down out of the chair at their pleasure, and so set up the Pope again.
SECT. VI.
6. I Have perused over all the Articles or Decrees of the Synod of Dort, and unfeignedly▪ honor them, as containing sound and moderate Doctrine, and heartily lament that some late Divines have to the great detriment of the Church and Truth, forsaken the moderate way of that Synod, and laid the weight of the Anti-Arminian Cause, so much upon higher points not owned by them. And there is nothing that I have observed in it all, that my Judgment doth contradict, if I be allowed these few Expositions following.
WHere it is said Artic. 1. Sect. 12. De hâc aeterna electione, electi suo tempore variis licet gradibus, & dispari mensura, certiores redduntur, non arcana, &c. I understand it as showing only what way the Elect do attain assurance, who more or less do attain it, and not as affirming that all the Elect do more or less attain a certainty of their Election. For as I think that doctrine uncomfortable to many poor Christians, so I think it cannot he proved of all the Elect.
2. In the 3. Art. sect. 12. its plain by the annexed words, that persuasionem Moralem, they mean external suasion, and do not determine whether the name of suasion be agreeable or not, to the internal work of the Spirit, which for my part • am certain is beyond my reach to know, and I am confident beyond the reach of all men on earth, even those that most pretend to know it. But that this grace of the Spirit is necessary to sanctify both the Understanding and Will, and that it is an act of Omnipotency, and infallibly effectual, (commonly called irresistible) on all the Elect, I am ready against all Pelagians to defend.
3. Where it is said sect. 15. that Qui illam non accipit, is aut haec spiritualia omnino non Curat, & in suo sibi placet: aut securus se habere inaniter gloriatur, quod non habet: I understand it as spoken of the ordinary sort of graceless unregenerate men, and not of all; for I doubt not, but its possible for a wicked man to know that he is wicked, and be afraid of Hell, yea, and to despair. I am loath to think desperation is a mark of Grace, and that none are graceless but the secure and confident.
4. In the 5. Artic. sect. 9, 10. Where it is said that▪ Believers may be, and are certain of their perseverance, according to the measure of their faith, I understand that word, are Certain, pro mensura fidei. 1. As supposing the certainty of their sincerity; for a man must be certain that he hath grace, before he can be certain to persevere in it. 2. As supposing a certain understanding of the Truth of the Doctrine, that all true Believers shall infallibly persevere: for none can be certain to persevere merely as a Believer, that is not first certain that all Believers shall persevere. 3. I suppose therefore that this is not spoke of all Believers, but of some. For 1. All are not certain that they are sincere. 2. All are not certain that the doctrine of Infallible perseverance is true; for to conclude that all the Lutheran Churches that deny this, and all the Arminians and Anabaptists that deny it, and all the Ancient Fathers and Churches that denied it, besides Musculus, and others of our own, were certainly graceless and unbelievers, were not only inconsistent with the faith and charity, but with the reason of a Christian; and no less then an inhumane charge.
5. Where it is said, sect. 11. that God per Spiritum Sanctum perseverantiae certudinem in iisdem rursus excitat. I understand it as true of some, but not of all; for I dare not pronounce damnation on all that die unassured of their sincerity, much less on all that are unassured of perseverance.
6. To the 13. sect. I doubt not but the meaning is, that Certainty of perseverance doth not of itself, and of its own nature beget carelessness or negligence; and so I believe its true. Nay, I think that Love and Gratitude are ordained to be the Master Ruling Graces in the Kingdom of Christ (under Faith;) and that Fear is but to supply the defects of our yet-imperfect Love. And therefore the more any man loveth, the more he will obey: and the more he is assured of God's love, the greater advantage he hath to love him again. But yet I doubt not, but the remnants of our corruption, by the strength of temptation, may make Assurance an Occasion, or Accidental Cause of Negligence and actual sin: which I suppose this Section doth not deny.
These are all the limiting Expositions which I desire liberty to make use of, and with which I do, as is aforesaid, profess my consent to the Canons or Decrees of the Synod of Dort. And how far any of these are from favoring Arminianism, they that will see, need not to be ignorant. Yea, in the very Article of perseverance, which some were pleased to quarrel with me about, I subscribe to the Synod: Yea, in the Article of the extent of Redemption, wherein I am most suspected and accused (and was fain to use a limiting Exposition in my consent to our Assemblies Confession of Faith) I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition of any word as doubtful and obscure. I do also freely consent to the Rejections, with the liberty of three or four the like Explications, which I will not mention, lest I seem quarrelsome, or be further tedious, because they are about smaller matters then those I have mentioned, and no way touching the quick of the controverted Articles, and I am persuaded that my sense of them is the same with the Synods.
And because it is this Synod purposely called against Arminianism, that is the best discovery what is to be accounted Arminian or Anti-Arminian doctrine, as I think, by consenting to it, I do clear myself from that calumny with all men of Conscience and Reason that know it, so I shall think that those who go as much on the other hand, and differ from the Synod one way, as much as the Arminians did the other way, remain censurable as well as they; till somebody shall convince me that there is but one extreme, in this case, and that a man may hold what he will without danger, so he be but sure it go far enough from Arminianism. A man that holds to the moderation of the Synod of Dort, need not say that Christ did not die or satisfy for all men, nor need he trouble himself with presumptuous Determinations about many Mysteries in the Decrees of God, which many volumes are guilty of; Nor doth he need to aver the Necessity of Immediate Physical Efficient predetermination by God (as the first cause) of every second cause Natural and Free, as without which they cannot act: Nor need he say, that God so predetermineth to the Act which is sin, and not to the sinfulness of the Act: Nor need he Subscribe to all that Dr. Twisse, or Mr. Rutherford, or such like, have written on these points. Nay, as this Synod, so our own Assembly gave an Example of modesty in these points, to them that will follow it; Not only silencing many things which others make the Pillars of Anti-Arminianism, but expressing that the Will is endued by God with that Natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of Nature determined to do good or evil, and therefore they never tell you that God as the first cause must of natural necessity Determine man's will by Physical immediate premotion, before it can act either good or evil: But they reserve the honor of determining man's will to special Grace, Renewing the will, and by Almighty power determining it to that which is good. c. 10. Sect. 1. and c. 9. Sect. 1.
Many other moderate passages I could show in our Assemblies Confession, to some that have need to imitate them, and the Antinomians may see their Doctrine subverted, in their excellent Definition of saving faith, in both Catechisms, and in the Confession; in their determination of the natural effects of sin in whomsoever, Ch. 6. Sect. 6. in their determination of the necessity of Repentance (as sine qua non ) to Remission, Ch. 15. 3. with more the like.
And now if they have any standing Rule to know a Papist or Arminian, I think I have acquit myself from their Accusation; But if there be no Rule of the Orthodox Doctrine, and for rejection of Error, but the giddy distracted brains of Libertines, that know not where to fix themselves, then I am content to bear the name of Jesuit, Papist, or what these men shall please to call me.
Yet let me add this, lest my seeking to satisfy the offended, may draw me into guilt; Though I have voluntarily myself professed my consent to these several Canons and Confessions of faith; yet, for the Synod of Dort, the Confession of our Assembly; yea, or the larger Catechism, without some Correction, I do hereby Protest my dissent against the so imposing them to a word upon all Ministers, that no man that cannot subscribe to them shall be permitted in the Church: Whether our Confession were intended for such a necessary Test, I know not well; But that the Synod of Dort was, is expressed in the end. I abhor unlimited liberty of Conscience, so called, that is, of divulging intolerable Doctrines; and I lament also, that instead of moderation, the Churches for 1300. years have been so guilty of proud and cruel Tyranny. There is singular use for a full body of Theology, or a Profession concluded on by such Reverend Assemblies, that the younger Ministers may be taught by it, and the Reverence of it may restrain them from rash contradicting it: And there is a necessity of exercising power in Ministerial Assemblies, for the actual restraint of such as shall teach things intollerably unsound: and all Ministers should be there accountable for their Doctrine. But before any Forms be tendered us to subscribe, we must have them reduced into a narrower room, and into phrase so clearly Rational or Scriptural, as no Sober, Studious, Competent, Godly Divine shall scruple: Call it Socinian, or what name so ever imperious Faction shall put upon it, yet tender Consciences will expect this, and the Churches shall never have peace in any other way, unless I be a false Prophet; and the contrary course doth but tend to do the same in Doctrine, as the Common-Prayer-Book did in worship; Even to ensnare the most conscientious, and work them out of the Ministry by degrees, and to create us insensibly a lazy formal Ministry, that will take all upon trust, and run to the Authority of their confession, instead of their Bible. I have long feared that the toleration threatened in these times for all, is a judgment of God for our running into the Tyrannical extreme so long; and I withal hope that he will turn this judgment to a mercy. Though I dislike too much liberty in the Commonwealth more then too little; (and in the Church much more such toleration is intolerable, in cases of clear duty or sin;) Yet, I fear Tyranny more then too much Toleration. 1. For experience sadly tells me that Tyrannical Usurpation of dominion over men's faith hath distracted the Church, even beyond any visible probability of recovery; and it hath been the cause of its misery for 1300. years; but the experience of the mischiefs of Toleration is nothing so great. 2. And I know that man's nature is so prone to proud domineering, and so Idolatrously inclined to have all men of their mind, and to dance after their Pipe, that it will be still by assing Rulers to that extreme: So that its easy without a spirit of Prophesy to foretell, that unlimited Tolerations will not long be granted by any one except a mere Infidel, that having no Religion himself, cares for nothing but his own politick ends; or a Julian that is contriving the extirpation of Religion, and intends by the tayling of Foxes to fire the field of Christ, rather then by the yoaking of Oxen to plow and sow it. And policy will never long work that way neither, without some persecution intermixt. Its easy to Prognosticate this, to him that knows what the heart of man is. So that for my part, I think the cause of God's permission of too much looseness in these times, is to cure our former Rigor, and our being Righteous and Orthodox overmuch, by suffering men to go as much too far into the contrary extremes. Little do some men lay this to heart, who only continue exclamations (though deserved) against Toleration, when it is but their own disease, and what they have caused, that God is curing by this sad remedy. They should rather see their sin in this glass, and be humbled.
CHAP. III.
A true Account of my Judgment, how much I give to Works.
SECT. I.
VNcharitable jealousies, and high expectations are not easily satisfied. Because the charge that Mr. Crandon and his brother lay against me, is from my judgment about man's works and personal righteousness, I strongly imagine that it must be a larger confession in this point then the Assemblies, or then any of the foreign Churches have made, which must satisfy these men. I will do what I apprehend to be my duty, and let them use it as they see meet.
And here I must desire the Reader, that would not wrong himself and me, to difference between Matter and Words: and to know, that though fit Terms and Methods be commendable, yet while we agree in the Matter, the difference about mere words should not seem great. I will therefore lay down my judgment as to the Matter, and then say something to Verbal differences by themselves.
And first I shall tell you Negatively what I do not give to works: and then Affirmatively what I do: and I shall not hide my mind in either.
1. I Believe that neither Adam in Innocency, nor any Angel, were capable of deserving anything that was good from God, by way of Commutative Justice, or as making God their Debtor for any benefit that he received by their works.
2. I believe that ever since Adams fall, it is a thing impossible for any mere man to be Justified or saved by his Works, according to the tenor of that first Law of Works, in force.
3. According to the tenor of that first rigorous Law, no unregenerate man can do any work so good, which shall not deserve death for the evil of it.
4. The same is true of the best works of the Regenerate themselves, as tried by that Law alone: Because of the sinful imperfections in Principles, Ends, Degree, Manner, &c.
5. All men therefore Regenerate and Unregenerate must be so far from thinking to be Justified by that Law, that they must not think that any one work that ever they did, should not be condemned by it, and they themselves for that work.
6. It is therefore false Doctrine of them that teach, that there is any true sin so small or venial, as to deserve only temporal punishment, and not everlasting, according to that Law.
7. No works of obedience which an Unregenerate man can perform, can deserve pardon of sin past from God: No not of one the smallest sin.
8. There was no such Virtue or Efficacy in the most costly Sacrifices of Moses Law, or the fullest observance of all their Rites, as could of themselves procure the pardon of sin, or do anything thereto, otherwise then in Subordination to the blood of Christ.
9. The best works and fullest obedience of all the Creatures in the world, could not have made God Satisfaction for our former sin.
10. A Heathen that hath not the Gospel, cannot by the light or power of Nature, do any such Works, upon which God is obliged to give him the Gospel: Not only on the account of desert, but even as mere conditions of a Covenant, are they thus totally defective, God being in no such Covenant with any such men.
11. An Infidel that hath the Gospel, cannot by the mere help of that Gospel, and the mere power of Nature, do any work, on the performance whereof (as Meritorious, or merely conditional) God is bound to give him Faith: because God is not in any such Covenant with them, nor can their Works deserve it.
12. A Baptized unsound Believer, who hath the highest faith, short of that which is saving, cannot by the mere light of the Gospel, or by the power of Nature and common Grace, do any act or work, on which God is bound to give him sincerity, or special saving Grace: there being neither Merit in his Work, nor any Promise, which should oblige God hereto.
13. Works of External Obedience to Christ, do not so much as go before our first Remission and Justification as bare conditions.
14. Nay, they do not (if sincere) exist before it, but in order of nature seem to follow after it: So that it is not only fides solum, but fides sola, in respect of them, by which we are Justified.
15. Faith itself doth not Merit our Pardon or Justification, nor Justify us as a Work, nor as Faith.
16. The Regenerate, when Justified, cannot for the future perfectly fulfill the Law of God; much less can they do works of supererogation, pleasing to God.
17. No works of the Regenerate, Internal or External, are to join with Christ's Sufferings and Merits, as any part of Satisfaction to God's Justice for our sins; no not the least part, for the least sin. Nay, they make us further indebted to God, in that our best graces are God's gifts, and the exercise of them is but a receiving more from him: The more we do, the more we enjoy, not only for, but in our duty.
18. Works done by the power of Grace, according to the Law of Grace or Nature, do not Merit either our Justification or Remission, as begun, continued or consummate at Judgment; Nor yet our Salvation: No nor any temporal Blessing; nor yet do they join with Christ in Meriting, as any part of Merit.
19. Neither Faith, Love, Repentance, or any Works of ours, are any true efficient Causes of our Remission, or Justification (Constitutive or Sentential before God) either Principal or Instrumental.
20. External Works, be they never so glorious and costly, (as the giving of all that we have to the poor) are not so much as accepted by God, without inward sincerity, and right ends: And when there is both sincerity, and right ends, and the Work materially good, yet is it not so much as accepted by God, but only for Christ, in whom the defects and sinfulness of it are pardoned, without which it could not be accepted, so far as for the person to escape punishment for it.
A Man would think, that among true Subjects of Christ, who know what obedience they owe him, I should need to say no more against works; and among men of holiness, one would think that this much should suffice to free me from the imputation of Popery: Unless the Flaccian spirit be again revived. But if indeed it be true that Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Crandon say, that the Papists give no more to Works then I, then I think the Papists are less Erroneous then we have hitherto made the World believe. Do Protestants deny to Works anymore then I have here done? In a word more, I do utterly disclaim the giving of the least part of Christ's Office or Honor to man's Works. Now I hope my affirmations, wherein I shall show what I ascribe to Works, will not be offensive, if they contradict not these Negations.
SECT. II.
1. MAnkind oweth to God as his Creator and Ruler, a perfect obedience to all his Commands, Deut. 12. 32. Mat. 4. 10.
2. Mans Moral-Natural perfection consisted in his perfect internal and external conformity to God's will: In dispositive and actual obedience.
3. God is the Principal Efficient and Ultimate Final cause, the Alpha and Omega, in Morality, as he is in Naturality. His will is the first cause of duty, and other Duness or Right, and the pleasing his will is the Ultimate end of man in all.
I know God's glory may be said to be our Ultimate end: But we must take great heed how we understand that Phrase: Not as if the thoughts or praises of man, or anything without God, could be his Ultimate end, or should be ours: Nor as if man's Praises added a felicity to God, Reputative or Real, which should be his end: But it is the Communication and Manifestation to the Creature of his Glory, even the Glory of his Greatness, Holiness, Love, Justice, Mercy, &c. forever. Though the honoring of God in the Estimation and Praises of man, may be our end too, as it is duty to God, yet not our Ultimate end, much less is it God's. Now this Communicative Declarative Glorification of God is materially his end, because it is the thing that most pleaseth him in respect to the Creature: therefore the pleasing of God is, as it were, formally his end. This is all spoken, on supposition that we must ascribe to God, after the manner of man, An end, and the intention of it, and a being pleased therein: (as we use to say, God is man's happiness objectively, and fruition formally) For we cannot conceive or speak of God if we renounce such conceptions and expressions. So that the Ultimate end that man was made for, was to please God, Rev. 4. 11. Heb. 10. 38. Heb. 13. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 17. Col. 1. 10. The end as such, is better then all the means as such.
4. The Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness: Such is the holy nature of God, that he is pleased with Holiness, and the Obedience of his will. We must therefore intend the pleasing of him as our end, by Holiness Internal and External as the means.
5. Christ came not to take down this end, in the necessity or excellency of it, nor ever intended any such change: Which would have been to come as an enemy to God and man, and not as a Redeemer and Reconciler, Luk. 1. 74. Rev. 7. 15. Yea Christ's own Death, Resurrection, Intercession, sending the Spirit, and Government, are but means to the pleasing of God, and they are means also for the restoring of man to Holiness and Obedience, that thereby he may please God again, who had displeased him, was displeasing to him, and in a necessity of future displeasing him: Though the Communication of Mercy, and Manifestation of Love, Holiness, and other attributes of God were one Principal end of Christ's death, which was much obtained immediately in his dying: Yet was it no small part of the further ends which were to be attained to make man again so holy, as that he might please God by his Obedience, and to forgive the mixture of his sin which displeaseth him: Of which more anon.
6. Mankind doth now owe obedience not only to God, as Creator, but to Christ as Redeemer, and Rector on that Title. So that he is obliged by a double bond; and therefore his disobedience is a double transgression, and doubly displeasing to God: So far is he from being freed from obedience by Christ: which would be, if de jure, to make us God's; if de facto only, to make us Devils, or worse: and therefore could be none of the Redeemers work.
7. Infidels, and all Unregenerate men are under an Obligation to please God, and have means prescribed to them by God, which they ought to use for bringing them nearer to Christ, and to saving faith and full Union with Christ, that so they may be able to please God. And if they neglect these means, they are justly denied the benefits of Union with Christ, which is the end, Act. 17. 24, 27. Rom. 24. 15. Rom. 1. 18, 19, 20.
8. Unregenerate men may do such works by nature and common Grace, which for the matter, and ad hoc, or secundum quid, may please God, and upon which he may see meet to manifest some approbation of them, and will not only forbear to execute his Justice for the failing of that work, but also of some former works; yea, of gross sins: as in the case of Ahab, Nineveh, and others, doth appear, Psal. 78. Though still as he is not obliged to this much, so he never accepteth any work of a wicked man simpliciter, to the accepting of the person; nor to the pardon of the Eternal punishment.
9. Though Faith in Christ be a fruit of God's Eternal Election, and of Christ's Meritorious Redemption, and of the Holy Ghost's Effectual, Special saving operation; yet is it man's Act and Habit, and by the Precept made his duty, and by the Promise made the condition of our first Right in Christ as our Head and Husband, and our Conjunction with him, and consequently of our first Actual proper pardon of our sins, as to the Everlasting and greatest punishment: It being the tenor of the promise or deed of gift, that if we will believe, we shall have the son, and shall be pardoned and justified, and have power to become the Sons of God, and shall have Right to life.
10. This Faith is called One act in a Moral sense, as taking a man to be my Prince, my Teacher, my Master, to be a Husband, a Physician, &c. and not in a Physical sense: for so it is many acts: and that both, 1. As diversifyed by the faculties of the soul which believeth (and so it is 1. The Understandings Assent, 2. The wills Consent, with that Assiance which is an act of the Affection) 2. And as these acts are diversifyed from the divers Objects, and formal Reasons of the objects: And so for the assenting part, the formal Object is the Veracity of God, the Material Object is both the Verity of the Ennunciation, and also the Natural Verity of the Things contained therein, which are more then one. The Principal are 1. Christ himself, and that considered in his Nature, as God and as man, and in his office as Mediator, and so as King, Priest, Prophet; and in the exercise of these, as One that hath been born, lived perfectly, died innocently, satisfied, risen again, and is now ascended and in glory, Reigning and Interceding. 2. The End of his Redemption, viz. our final blessedness in the unseen Glory, and our pardon and sanctification as the way and beginning. It is more then one Axiom or Ennunciation, and more then one Benefit and Matter contained which we must believe, which cannot be done with one Physical Act of the Intellect. 2. Also the Object of the will is more then one: 1. The Direct Object is Christ himself. 2. The Final is the salvation which he brings: 1. Ultimate, in our Glory: 2. Mediate, or nearer, in our Pardon, Adoption and Sanctification. Also Christ himself is considered as Good, and so is received, with Love; and as a Benefactor, and so with Gratitude; and as Great and Magnificent, and so with reverence and admiration; and as King, and so by a consent of subjection: He is considered as offered, and so our Receiving is consent: or he is considered as in competition with other pretending Means, and so our Receiving is Election. All these are but o • e Moral act, called Faith, or Taking, or Receiving Christ as our Savior: And all these Natural acts are essential to this one Moral Act.
11. Though Charity, as it respecteth other Objects, is no part of this Faith, yet as it respecteth an offered Savior, it is as much essential to Faith to Receive Christ with love, as it is essential to a Savior (the object of Faith) to be Good for us. For Good as Good is received by Love. Nor was it ever the intent of the Holy Ghost, to take Faith in Christ in so narrow a sense as includeth not love to him, when it is saving Faith that is spoken of. The like may be said of Gratitude; being a modification of a right Receiving, Rev. 22. 17 Joh. 1. 12.
12. This faith by which we are justified and saved, is the Receiving of Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ; and as a Savior entirely; and as a Physician of our Souls, to cure us of, and save us from both Guilt and Power of sin, and the misery due for it. And so it is the Receiving of Christ as a Prophet to Teach us, and a King to Rule us, and a Priest, after the Order of Melchizedek, now to intercede for us, and not only as a sacrifice for our sins, or a satisfier of Justice for us. Its the Receiving of whole Christ.
13. It is not only without any ground in God's word, but fully against it, to say, that faith justifieth only as it apprehendeth Christ as a Ransom, or satisfier of Justice, or Meriter of our Justification, or his Righteousness as ours, and not as it Receiveth him as King, or as a Savior from the stain and tyranny of Sin: If the word As respect but the Aptitude and matter of Faith, it is both; and the Scripture makes no such distinction here: but if it respect the nearest formal Reason of faiths Interest in our Justification, then it is neither as one nor as the other. Though ex parte Christi, it be only his Ransom and Merit, that satisfieth and purchaseth our justification (as it is Christ as King that justifieth us a • tually:) Yet exparte nostri, it is not our receiving Christ in one respect that procures one benefit, and our Receiving him in another respect that procures another benefit; but it is the full sincere Reception of him as our Savior, in all the essential parts of his office, which is the Condition of our Right in him, and all his benefits that accompany him; so that the necessity of distinguishing the several causes of our salvation in Christ, or the several benefits which he brings and we receive, doth not infer any necessity of ascribing • he Effects to several acts of faith, or several respects as it is distinguished according to these several objects, or respects in the object: Because Faith doth not make Christ and his benefits ours, by a proper natural Reception, which is always a Passion, but by an improper Moral Reception, properly called Acceptation, and called Reception Reputatively, as being the condition of that Natural Reception, Joh. 3. 16. and 19. compared.
14. The nearest and formal Reason of Faiths Interest in our pardon and justification, is not either because it is Faith in Genere, nor because it is haec fides, this faith in specie, that is, because it is the Apprehension of Christ: For the object specifieth the act, and to be an act on such an object, is essential to that act in specie: to be an Apprehension of Christ is essential to saving Faith in specie: And it is not the Essence of Faith, General or Special, that is the formal reason of its interest in our justification: But it is its being a Condition of the promise, constituted such by the free Donor: seeing it belongs to every free Donor, much more to the Absolute Monarch of the World, to make his own terms, and determine of the Conditions of his own Donations: and as God's will as Creator gives us the faculty whereby we Believe, and God's will as New-Creator or Renewer, gives us the Rectitude of that faculty, and so faith itself; so it is God's will as Donor of pardon, Justification, Adoption and Right to Glory, which only is able to give our faith its nearest formal Interest in our Remission, Justification, Adoption, &c. In order of Nature, though not of time, it is Faith, before it is Justifying or Saving. The Nature of the thing is before the office it is freely designed to.
I should have put this conclusion among the Negatives, because it takes from man's Act of Believing, and not gives to it, but gives all to the free Constitution and will of the Donor, but that it was here necessary to illustrate the rest.
15. Nor yet is it the goodness of Faith, as a good work, that is the formal Reason of its Interest in our pardon and justification (which was hinted in the Negatives. )
16. Yet is the Goodness of Believing pleasing to God; and as Entity and Event, as such, is the Object of God's will, as it is the fountain of Entity and Event as such; (or the product of that will:) so is Goodness-Moral the Object of the Will of God, as it is the Fountain and end of Ethical Rectitude and Goodness. And therefore as the terms Love and Complacency, &c. are more ordinarily and properly applied to the Ethical acts of the Will and Affection, which are in man most excellent, then to the Natural Appetite and Delight: and the Objects of these Ethical Affections, are an Ethical Good (as the objects of Natural Appetite is a mere Natural Good;) so it is the most seemly, and honorable, and Scriptural way of expression, to call those acts of God's which are terminated on Moral Good, by the name of Love and Complacency: though sometime also Scripture extendeth them to those acts that are t • rminated in Natural Good: but ordinarily God is said rather to Will Enti • y and acts as such; and to love them, Delight in them, and be Pleased with them as Good Morally: If without Faith we cannot please God, doubtless both in and after believing we do.
17. Yea Faith (and holiness, of which anon) is therefore pleasing to God, and loved by him, because good Morally. Its true, that properly we must not say that the object is the cause of God's Act, as it is of man's: But 1. It is but after the manner of man, and improperly, that we apply the Act itself to God; and therefore on the same ground (only with an acknowledged further impropriety) we may apply that to him which is the definition of man's act. 2. Though as God's will, loving, pleasedness, &c. is his Essence, so we may neither think nor speak of it, as caused by the object: But as it is either Formaliter ( as Scotus speaks) or, ration ratiocinata ( as the Thomists speak) distinct from his Essence, or at least quoad Denominationem extrinsecam, so it may be said that God therefore loveth Holiness because it is Good, and hateth sin because it is Evil: and so give a Reason of his Act from the Object. If it be but an Objective respect that denominateth God's Essence to be Knowledge, Will, Love; So from the Object must the particular Acts be denominated, though there be no real diversity.
18. A quatenus, ad omne valet consequentia: If faiths formal interest in pardon be, As it is the Condition of the Act of pardon, then whatsoever is such a condition must have the same kind of formal Interest as faith.
19. Repentance is made by God in the Gospel, a proper Condition of our first general pardon of sin, as well as Faith is, Luk. 13. 35. Act. 3. 19. & 2. 38. & 26. 20.
20. Faith was not designed to the office of being a condition of pardon, only or directly for the general goodness of it: but for a special sort of goodness, consisting in a special and peculiar aptitude which it had to this office and honor. For God having determined to glorify, love and mercy, it must needs be by Free-Grace and gift: and determining to pardon us by free gift, there is no act so directly fit for that office, as the acceptance of that free gift. It must be an acceptance, or consent, because God deals as Rector as well as Benefactor, with a rational creature, who is a free Agent, and therefore it were not fit that he should have Christ, Pardon, Justification, Right to Glory, against his Will: Nor would that stand with the curing of his Nature, or the giving him the use or comfort of these Benefits, which are other parts of Salvation, and must here begin in this first consent. It must be an humble consent, or acceptance, with free acknowledgement and bewailing of unworthiness: For the Receiver is miserable, and therefore must receive humbly; and the Grace is Free, and penitent Confession is the Acknowledging and Glorifying the freeness of it: It must be a loving acceptance, because the Object is eminently good in itself, and to us: It must be a grateful acceptance, because the benefit is so great. It must be an acceptance of Christ as our Guide and King; because 1. There be ends of his own to be respected as well as ours: God cannot intend man before and above his own Glory; Nor must we: Christ will be had only on terms honorable to himself, as well as profitable to us: As a Husband, Head, Master, Lord, and not as an equal. 2. And because also that his Teaching, Guiding, and Sanctifying us is a Principal part of his saving us; And so for ourselves we must so accept him. So that Faith in all its parts and respects, is in natura rei, fitted to this office: Insomuch that we may in some respect call it, The Law of nature which imposeth Faith on Redeemed man (all the preparations considered and supposed) as well as we may call it the Law of nature which imposed perfect obedience on perfect man.
Also the Intellectual Act before all these must needs be Pure Belief, because the Object was a mere promise, and an unseen blessedness. So then you may see that it was not the general goodness of Faith, as a Virtue or good Work only, but it was a peculiar Aptitude that Faith had to this special way of conveying Salvation by Free-Grace, for which God made it the condition thereof.
21. The very nature of this saving Faith, is to be a Heart-Covenant of a sinner with Christ as a Savior (and in him with the offended Majesty:) Even as is a Covenant of a woman to her husband, a Soldier to his Commander, a Subject to his Prince, a Scholar to his Master; It is our becoming his Disciples.
22. This Covenant containeth an Engagement to future Obedience: So that though our first faith be not the same thing with Obedience to Christ (at least its distinct from all other following obedience as is aforesaid) yet in taking Christ for King, it essentially containeth a Resolution and Covenant to obey him.
23. Though Repentance, being a condition of the promise of pardon, have the same formal Interest for kind in our pardon as Faith, yet in that they are made conditions upon several grounds, and from very different Reasons in the nature of the Acts, therefore there is a great difference to be put between one and the other in this business. Faith is therefore made the condition, because in its nature it is fitted directly ad ipsam Remissionem; It is commanded and appointed to this office, for the immediate necessity and fitness of it, to our obtaining pardon as pardon: For it is not Repentance, but Faith, which is the accepting or receiving applying Act or Grace (which is called its Instrumentality by Divines: and if this concession will satisfy, I should be glad:) But Repentance is made a condition of pardon, on another reason, (though as necessary ) viz. Because without it God and the Redeemer cannot have their end in pardoning us, nor can the Redeemer do all his work, for which we do accept him. For his work is, upon the pardoning of us, to bring us back in heart and life to God, from whom we were fallen and strayed. This was Christ's work, to seek and save that which was lost. To be lost, is to lose God. To be saved, is to be brought back to God. Therefore the conditions which Christ maketh are, as if he should say, If you will be saved by me, and are willing that I shall bring you back to God, I will both bring you into his favor by pardon, and into a capacity of personal pleasing and enjoying him. Now our Repentance is our consent to return to God, and the change of our minds, by turning from former sin that was our Idol, and being willing by Christ to be restored to obedience. Understand therefore (as I shall say more anon) that pardon of past sins, is a step to our future Sanctity and Obedience, as one of its ends. Therefore doth Christ pardon what is past, that we may be in a capacity acceptably to return to God by obodience. And therefore we must first turn to him by Repentance, which is a purpose of obedience, before he will pardon us. For without this he cannot attain the ends of his pardoning us. I have Animadversions from a most Judicious Learned Divine, that thinks indeed Repentance and Faith to be all one: and many others are of that mind. In some respect it may be so: but not in all: of which I will not stand to speak now.
This I say, that men may see I do not Level Faith with Repentance, much less (as they charge me,) with actual external works of obedience, which in this first Remission and Justification, I take not to be so much as existent.
Though when the Question is, why Faith or Repentance have such an interest in our pardon, we give the same answer de ration formali, because God hath made them the Conditions of his promise; yet we give not the same Reason, à natura & aptitudine actus; but very different, as is declared.
24. As the Commination is but the last part of the Law, and subservient to the precept which is the principal part; and as the penalty is not intended by the Legislator propter se, nor propter se loved or desired by him, but upon supposition of disobedience, by which his principal Will is violated, and for the prevention of such disobedience for the future; so in restoring the sinner, the promise of pardon or impunity is a means subservient to the Moral Law; and the remitting of sin is not intended to be absolutely the principal part of our Recovery to God, but a part subservient to our real Renovation by Sanctity and Obedience, as imperfectly now begun, and to be perfected hereafter. Our first general pardon is, that we may escape God's wrath, and be capable of acceptable Obedience for the future: Our following particular pardon of each particular sin, is that we may escape God's wrath for that sin, and may have the blemishes and defects of our obedience supplied, and healed, and covered, and may be continued in a capacity of acceptable obeying for the future; which else we could not be, seeing the defect of the best duty deserveth condemnation; and therefore it is through pardoning grace that the defects must be covered, that it may be accepted.
25. Yet as our unholiness and actual sin, is considered, not in itself, as disobedience to God, and as displeasing to him, but as a penal misery on us (penal by accident, as committed, or not cured, or not removed, though never penal per se) so to sanctify is to pardon. For pardon is of three distinct sorts. 1. Constitutive, by God as Legislator, giving us right to Impunity. 2. Declarative or Sentential, by God as Judge, determining our Right. 3. Executive, by God, as Executor of Justice, in taking off, or not inflicting the penalty. In the first respect, to give right to Impunity, containeth the giving Right to sanctification, so far as the want of it is considered as a punishment. In the last respect, non punire, containeth among other things, the not denying us the spirit and grace, and so not leaving us to ourselves in unholiness and disobedience. And indeed sin is a punishment to itself, and sin and unholiness itself, is not the least part of that misery of the sinner; though still it must be distinctly considered as sin and punishment, and how it is both.
26. So proportionably in the life to come, whither all these preparations tend, our own impunity in heaven is not God's ultimate end, but a means to our perfect pleasing and giorifying of him; and not only glorifying him objectively, as we are pardoned sinners, but further pleasing and glorifying him actually: being such perfected creatures, and doing him such perfect service of praise, as is most agreeable to his blessed nature, and which he can take complacency in. Yea, though you consider our glorification and perfection itself, as the effect of pardon, because pardon gives us right to full impunity, and the poena damni is punishment, as well as the poena sensus, yet the same sanctity and phrases, as they are our impunity, yea as our felicity, are below themselves considered as terminated in God, and being the perfect pleasing of him.
27. Therefore all the righteousness or perfections of the people of God in this life consisteth not in the mere pardon of their sin, as distinct from holiness and obedience, but they must needs have also a personal righteousness, co • sisting in the holiness of their hearts and lives: which Scripture most frequently mentioneth, and which all Divines confess, calling it by the name of inherent righteousness.
28. The more holiness and obedience any man hath, and the less unholiness and sin, the more lovely and pleasing is he to God. And the less sin any man hath, the less he hath to be pardoned: And the less is pardoned, the less he hath of that sort of righteousness▪ which consisteth in free pardon, through the blood of Christ, therefore the more any Saint hath of the righteousness of sanctity and obedience, and the less need of that which consisteth in remission, the more pleasing is he to God, and more suitable to his will, as he is Rector of mankind; yet he will deal injuriously, and as a Calumniator, that shall run away with one piece of this, dismembered from the rest, and so of the true sense, and shall report merely, that I say, that he is most pleasing to God, that hath least imputed righteousness, or least remission of sin, much more if he say [He that hath least of Christ's righteousness]; when even inherent righteousness is Christ's righteousness, who is made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, and Sanctification, in that he effecteth them in us by his Spirit. My experience of the impudency of Calumniators causeth me to add this Caveat, on foresight of their attempts.
29. Therefore it is that every Christian must first bend the powers of his soul, for holiness and obedience, and for these lay out the first of his care and labor, and but consequentially for Remission of sin, because of his unavoidable failing in his first attempts for obedience. Otherwise, if before the sin is committed, the Righteousness of Remission were in order to be referred and desired before the Righteousness of obedience, then a man that should use his utmost endeavor to commit as many sins as he could, or at least, as he could hope should be pardoned, and he that sinned most, that he might have the most use for pardon, did take the most pleasing course to God, and so men should sin that grace might abound. Then which wicked imagination, nothing is more contrary to Gospel-Grace.
30. Therefore it is also, that God doth deter men from some greater sins, as more difficult to be pardoned in some respects, then less: that is, They shall not have the pardon of them, at least fully, on so quick and easy terms, as the other: nay he deterreth them from going far in sin, either as to the intensive increase, or the continuance of time, lest he cut them off, or withdraw his Grace, and give them up to themselves, and pardon them not at all: He chargeth them to seek him while he may be found, and call upon him while he is near, and that the wicked forsake his way, and that they harden not their hearts, but hear while it is called today, lest he swear in his wrath, that they shall not enter into his rest. Nay, there is a sin which he will not pardon, but hath excepted out of the Act of Remission, viz. the final nonperformance of the Gospel-conditions, of Faith Repentance and sincer • new obedience, and the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, (whatsoever be said of total Apostasy also.) All which shows that God, as Rector, would have us rather to obey him, then put him to pardon our disobedience: Sanctity being our sanity, the health of our souls, and pardon but one part of the cure (curing our own loss and misery, but not our unholiness as such.) And God would have us rather to forbear wounding ourselves, then to make wounds for him to cure. And therefore, disobedience (which must be pardoned) is commonly called in the Scriptures, the displeasing of God, and the offending him; it is a wronging and abusing him, it is a pressing him, a provoking him, a grieving him, &c. And God would rather have us forbear this, then to put him to remedy it: and is better pleased with not-grieving him, not displeasing and offending him, not abusing him, then to do all this, and then seek a pardon. Though its true, that when we have foolishly offended, a pardon through Christ's blood doth blot out all the guilt or obligation to punishment.
I speak not all this of God's Decretive Will de Rerum eventu, nor do I now dispute, whether according to that he willeth sin, and whether it be fit to say, that God had rather David committed Adultery and Murder by God's permission, and be pardoned for it, then not to commit it: These I now meddle not with; but it is his Will as Rector, de aequo, Bono, Debito, Jure, that I speak all this of: And so Inherent Righteousness is thus pleasing to God.
31. Hence it is that Christ himself, as Mediator, and Redeemer, in satisfying and procuring pardon, is a Remedy, a means to our Recovery, a way to the Father, &c. It is one end of his bloodshed and Redemption to procure us the Spirit, and restore us to a state of Holiness, and to purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, Tit. 2. 14. & to wash us & cleanse us, that he may present us pure and acceptable to his Father, without spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5. 26, 27.
Yet let none say here, that I make our own sanctity to be a better thing simply then Christ's satisfaction or merits, in making it the End, which is always better then the Means: For, 1. I make it but one part of the End, and not the whole (nor do I say that it is the Ultimate End at all:) And it is the whole End that is better then the Means. 2. And it is not simpliciter & materialiter, that the End is always better then the means, but its only true of the means in the formal notion of a means, and not quoad naturam rei. If any further object, that God is better pleased to have the world Redeemed by Christ, then to have had them keep their innocence, and to have his own people sin, then to live perfectly, or else it should not so come to pass. I answer, This is transire à genere ad genus: It concerneth God's will de Rerum Eventu quâ talis, of which I will not now d • spute; and not his Rectoral Will, de Debito & bono Morali. I doubt not but God can see that he be no loser by sin, or else he would not permit it: But I am not now speaking of that Decretive will about events, which in most things is so far above our reach, and therefore is called by Divines, his Secret Will; but of that will by which he is the Fountain of Moral Good, and Governeth the world, and which is more within our reach, and therefore fittest to govern our expressions: and which in the Lord's Prayer we pray may be done in Earth as it is in Heaven.
32. Hence also it is that as we increase in Holiness we increase in favor with God: which if it might be said of Christ who never had any Privative defect of Holiness, but only was to increase in the exercise of it, having no sin at all, how much more of us, who are removing still from our Corruption and sinful provocations of God. Though if we take God's Love as signifying only his Decree of doing Good to us Eventually: it hath so no increase or decrease, and is the same before we are Regenerate, born or Redeemed, is after yet takeing it (as I before shown it is fittest for us usually to take it) for the Act of his will as the Fountain and end of Morality, and as he is conceived (after our low manner of Conception) to have that transcendently and eminenter, which formaliter in m • n we call Ethical Virtue, Goodness, Holiness, &c. wherein consisteth the perfections of the Will, and so we may, we must say, that we increase in favor with God, as we increase in Holiness and obedience, and the better any man grows, the more God loveth him which whether it can be said of his pardon, which addeth no more to him, but the continued or renewed Right to Impunity (and therefore most Divines say Justification is perfect, but sanctification is still to increase) I leave to consideration.
33. Hence also it is, that in the state of perfection in Glory, there shall be no more pardoning of sin, (though the remembrance & blessed effects of former pardon shall be continued, and we shall praise God forever for redeeming us by the blood of the Lamb) but our Holiness shall be perfect, and our Righteousness from that time forward only inherent (though as to former sins, we still shall retain the Righteousness of Remission): which shows that perfect holiness and inherent Righteousness, is that which God is better pleased with, then to be still remitting sin, and covering our own faults; or else he would not make that the state of our perfection, where he shall attain the end of Christ's blood, and all his means and workings fully, and we attain the end of our faith, hope and labors.
34. As subjection and allegiance to God goeth naturally before our sinning against him, and so before the pardon of our sin, so when the sinner is Receiving Christ by Faith, he must first in order consider him as a King, Ruler, and Teacher, before he consider or Receive him as the Pardoner of any future sin against Christ, which (though it be like to meet with reluctancy with those whose principles it subverteth) is yet a most evident truth. For pardon presupposeth sin, and sin presupposeth a Law and Law giver and subjection: There is no sin but against a Law and a Sovereign, and no pardon of anything but sin and punishment.
Hence it follows that as to the future, we Receive Christ first and principally to sanctify, rule and guide us, and but consequently to pardon the imperfection of our Obedience and our actual sins, which we would fain avoid and be without if we could: But Obedience is in • ended before the pardon of disobedience.
35. Yet herein is a main difference between our first and second All • giance; between our first subjection to, and Acceptance of God-Creator, and God-Redeemer, God as Ruling by the Law of Works, and as rul • ng by the Law of Grace, viz▪ that we had no former faults to be pardoned, when we were first subjected to God as Creator only; but we have a mountain of debt, of crimes, of guilt upon our backs when we are first called to Accept of, and submit to the Redeemer: And therefore as to all this former guilt, we do define Christ, first in the order of our consideration, as one that hath s • ti • fied for us, and paid that score, and will pardon all these former sins, upon his Gospel terms, before we consider him as either to govern us, or pardon our future sins. But this proves not that pardon is first accepted or received before Christ as Lord, though it be first desired by us: For the order of Acceptance and particip • tion is not the same as the order of Desire: For Acceptance must follow the Order of the gift or offer, but Desire may run before it.
Here also it appears, that there is a great difference between our Receiving Christ for the pardon of past sins, and of future sins, in our consideration and intention. Also a Christian may lawfully wish and pray against the need of further pardoning Grace, and hope for the time when he shall renew his need of it no more: But he may not wish for the time when he shall have no need of being inherently righteous▪ perfectly holy and obedient.
36. Christ never died to Reconcile God to our sins, nor doth God through Christ love, or accept our sins, though he do accept a Duty that hath sin commixt: nor doth God like sin ever the better because it is a member of Christ that committeth it: nay, as it b • th many aggravations more then the sins of aliens, so in respect of them he hateth it the more. Of a truth I perceive (better upon these convincing considerations then heretofore I did) that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.
37. Nothing but sin needeth pardon by Christ: And he never pardoneth any while they are in their Rebellion, and under the full dominion of sin: But when they in heart and Covenant Return to their Allegiance, to their rightful Lord by the Redeemer, then doth he pardon all sins past while they were in Rebellion, and putteth them in a sure way for the pardon of their future imperfections of obedience: so that all their future pardon but of imperfections, or sins consisting with their Allegiance, which still imply sincere obedience: but it is not of the sin of Rebellion, or Renouncing their Sovereign again, nor of denying totally the son by Apostasy: should they do this, there were no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of Judgment. Whereby it yet further appears that our pardon of sins after Conver •• on, is not our whole or only Righteousness: but as to our state before Conversion, the pardon of our sins then committed, is all our true Righteousness: unless improperly, secundùm quid, comparatively, or the like, you should call a wicked man's works Righ • eous, when they are less unrighteous. Yea this Righteousness, which consisteth in Remission of our past sins, doth in order of Nature follow our inherent Righteousness; There is no Adult person that ever partaketh of this, commonly called Imputed Righteousness, till he have first the inherent Righteousness of Faith and Repentance, which contains a resolution, for future New Obedience; though yet he have not actually so obeyed: yea, and that actual obedience followeth in the same minute of time according to the opportunity of exercising it, and thats ever in forbearing evil; and as soon as may be in doing good. So that its God's stablished order, that the Inherent Righteousness of Faith and Repentance shall go before the Righteousness of Remission, as the condition of enjoying it.
38. There is no such thing in rerum natura, as a true Righteousness, which doth not formaliter make the person so far Righteous. It is a contradiction: As to say, There is whiten • ss which makes not white, or Honor that makes not Honorable: Or merit that makes not deserving, or similitude that makes not simile: Or parity that makes not parem; or Paternity that makes not patrem, &c.
39. To make just, is one (the first) sort of justifying, commonly called Constitutive, as the following sorts are esteeming just, Judicio discretionis, and maintaining just, Apologetically by plea, and sentencing Just, definitively by Iudgem • nt, which is the most proper and perfect. Other subservient sorts there be, as by witnesses, &c.
40. There is much more goes to the continuing and consummating our Justification, then doth at first to justify us, as to the condition on our parts, to be performed to that end. Faith alone without external acts of Obedience, doth suffice to our first Justification: Yea, the first solitary numerical act of faith: But so it doth not to the continuance. For there is still requisite thereto, 1. The continuance of the Habit, 2. And renewing the act of that faith, 3. The addition of sincere Obedience: and many particular Materials of that Obedience (but not all) are made so necessary, that without them, the obedience cannot be sincere; as to be Humble, to forgive others, to love one another in Christ, to be merciful, to confess Christ, and suffer for him, if called to it, &c. these must be in the Habit, and ordinarily prevalent in act, upon opportunity.
1. Arg. The word expressly constituteth these Conditions, of our not losing our state of Justification, or of continuing it, therefore they are so. I have formerly shown it in many Scriptures. 2 Arg. Our first faith having the true nature of a Covenanting with Christ, and giving ourselves to him, and taking him for our Lord-Redeemer: therefore it follows, that as the Covenant making and Accepting was of necessity, as the Condition of our first Right and Remission, so is our Covenant keeping, of the same necessity to our continued Right; and that God is, as it were, disobliged, if we should not keep Covenant. And the keeping hath more in it then the bare making. No Covenant Relations usually are entered among men, but the Covenant keeping is more then the making, and the Condition of their continued Right more then of their first Right. So it is with a Subject to his Prince, Wife to a Husband, Soldier to a Commander, Scholar to his Teacher, Servant to his Master, &c. Promising will give them the first Right; but performing (in the essentials) must continue it, or it will cease. For the end of the promise was its performance: And in that respect faith, which is the Covenant, is inferior to Obedience which is promised; though in other respects it may be superior. 3. Arg. If there were no more necessary to the continuing of our Justification, but only the same thing which did constitute it, then we should be justified by no one act of faith to our lives end, but only the first instantaneous act, and so our faith after that instant should never more be Justifying faith. But thats false: for Abraham is said to be Justified by an act of faith, which was not his first; so was Rahab, and so are we all. So that more is required, as the condition of continuing it, then beginning it.
41. Hence also it appears, that though we are simul & semel, universally Justified from all the sins of our unregenerate state, yet we are not so from all following sins: and that there must be a continuing cause of our continued Iuistfication; which is (for the nearest efficient) the continued Moral act or force of the remedying Law, or the promise.
42. Hence also it is evident, that Justification or pardon, as to the present existence of it to a Believer, is actual and not merely conditional, as it was before Believing: But as to the continuance, and renewed pardon of Renewed sins, and the consummation, it is conditional still. Arg. 1. Its evident in the letter of the promise, Giving even to Believers such Remission and Justification, if they persevere, if they forgive others, obey, &c. Arg. 2. Else (as is said) no one Act of faith itself, but the first could be the condition of pardon, if it did not remain conditional as to the continuance and renewal.
43. Salvation is as freely Given as our Justification, and on the same conditions as our full Justification at Judgment is: for that Justification consisteth principally but in determining our right to salvation by public sentence. And it is as much dishonor to Christ's blood and Free-Grace▪ to make man his own Glorifyer, as pardoner, or to give the honor of Christ to man, in the matter of salvation, as much as in pardon and Justification. It is therefore a vain distinction without any ground in Scripture, to say that faith only is the condition of our final Justification, but works also are conditions of the Gift of Glorification. And to make one act of faith Justifying (viz. the apprehension of Christ's Righteousness) and another saving, or adopting▪ as the condition of these, is merely without Scripture, which distinguisheth not saving from justifying faith, as to the nature of the act.
44. It is a Christians duty to make his own continued, renovate, and consummate Remission of sin, and his salvation, one end of his obedience: and to work out his salvation with fear and trembling: and the contrary doctrine is pernicious and intolerable. Therefore our obedience is some means to these ends: therefore called, The way to the Kingdom.
45. Though Christ only hath satisfied for our disobedience, and merited our pardon, and Causeth us to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant, yet he never performed these for us in his own person, to free us from that performance: He neither Believed in himself, nor Repented by a change of mind, in our stead; nor will save us, if we do it not ourselves. Nor did he ever procure or intend a pardon, for the final non-performance of these Conditions.
46. The Covenant of Nature (or works) giveth us no Pardon of sin, nor yet will it pronounce our persons Righteous (simply and properly) for our most sincere Obedience, while it is imperfect: so that neither our imputed Righteousness is given by that Covenant, nor our inherent Righteousness at all Denominated a Righteousness (in the sense before expressed) by that Covenant. But it is the New Covenant that giveth us the righteousness of Remission, and Imputation, and Denominateth us righteous because of our performing its Conditions so far, and upon both denominateth us universally Righteous.
47. The Law is the rule of Judgment, as well as of Duty; by which Dueness or Right is determined sententially, as it is constituted first. To Judge by sentence, is the Genus, which consisteth in Justification, or Absolution, and adjudication of the Reward as one Species, and Condemnation as the other. As the Law hath two parts, the precept and the sanction, one determining what shall be Due from us to God, the other what shall be due from God to us: so the Accusation and the Judgment hath two parts. The first is the mediate, nearest, inferior part (in Judgment) as referring to the other as the end: And so the Accusation will be this, [Lord, these are sinners, or have broken thy Law.] This is but in preparation to the Conclusion, which is [Therefore they are not to be absolved and glorified, but condemned.] The Antecedent must be confessed [we have no Justification from that charge in itself considered] The consequence is to be denied, and the reason given [Jesus Christ hath died for us, and we are pardoned for his Merits: and therefore we are not to be condemned, but to be glorified, though we have sinned.] In this part of Justification man's works have no partnership with Christ's Righteousness, or Remission of sin: But this much will not serve the turn: For seeing Christ himself was given with his benefits, by a Law of Grace▪ and upon certain conditions, and did rule his redeemed ones by that Law; therefore the final sentence will be by Christ, as Redeemer, and according to that Law (with all that are under it): And therefore the next Accusation will be [Lord, these are Unbelievers, Impenitent, or Rebels against thee the Redeemer, and did not perform the conditions of thy promise, or Law of Grace] that is the Mediate Accusation de Reatu culpae: From whence is inferred the remote and the ultimate quoad reatum poenae, thus, [Therefore they have no Remission of sin according to thy Promise] and [therefore they are liable both to the common condemnation of sinners, and to the greater special Condemnation of unbelieving impenitent sinners] Against the first Accusation no man is Justified but by his own Faith, Repentance and Obedience, that is, by pleading not Guilty. And if this Accusation be not brought or supposed against men in Judgment, no man can be condemned (at least that hath heard the Gospel): For it is only the Unbelieving, or Impenitent, and Rebels against God-Redeemer, that shall be condemned to Hell, because being such, the former Guilt is not removed, and a Greater is incurred. The soul that is Justifi • d by its own Faith, Repentance and sincere Obedience, against the first Accusation, is consequentially Justified against the Second, [of having no pardon or part in Christ,] for the Antecedent being disproved, the Consequent is thereby disproved. And this being proved that he hath part in Christ, and in his promise of pardon and Life, thence followeth immediately the final sentence, therefore for the sake of Christ his blood and Merits he is to be Justified or Absolved, or not condemned, but as a Member of him to be Glorified with him in his Glory. So then m • n shall be condemned both by the Law of Works, and the Law of Grace: but those that are Justified shall be Justified only by the Law of Grace; yet against the Accusation of being condemnable for violating the Law of works, shall we be Justified by Christ's satisfaction; and therefore I may call that satisfaction our Justitia prolegalis; that which is instead of a Legal Righteousness to us.
48. Therefore doth the Judge justify men, because they are Just: He hateth him on earth, that justifieth the wicked, or condemneth the Innocent. The Righteousness of the cause, and of the person as to that cause, is the Reason why as to that cause he is Justified. (Though yet that may be called a Cause in Law-sense, which in Logic is but a Condition: and that may be a true Cause of the Justifying or Rewarding sentence, which is no true cause, but only a condition of the Reward itself or Right to Impunity.) Whatsoever Cause is to be tried in Judgment is either • ust or unjust; and so the person as to that Cause, is just or unjust; and there is no middle between these. Whatsoever therefore will be the cause of the Day to be tried, if it be a Just cause, will so far Iustifie the person as his Righteousness. It is evident that as the general final cause of that Day will be whether we are sons of Life or Death▪ to be sent to Heaven or Hell. as to which our Righteousness is [Non Reatus mortis, & Jus ad premium] formally (which is a Relation) so there are two subordinate causes to be tried, in order to this: The next to it, will be, whether we have part in Christ, and the Gospel Guift: The next is in subordination to this; viz, whether we have performed the Conditions of the Gospel: and upon this will all depend, and the final sentence: so that this being part of the Cause of the Day, the Righteousness of this cause must needs be the Righteousness of the Person, because of which the Judge will so far Iustifie him. The Confession of the first Guilt of mere sin, is still supposed.
49. By this it appeareth that God will Judge men according to their works, and according to what they have done in the flesh, whether it be Good or Evil; and that it will be a part of the cause of the day, to try us, whether we have fulfilled the conditions of the New Covenant or not, appeareth, in that Christ doth not only tell us so in his description of the Judgment; but so much insisteth upon this, that we must be very observant lest we see not the rest, but take this for the whole trial: Mat. 25. 21. Well done good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a little, &c. And Luke addeth, (what is here plainly implied ) Because thou hast been faithful: Vers. 35, 36. For I was hungry, and y • gave me meat, &c. that i • , [Ye preferred me your Lord Redeemer before your worldly Riches, Pleasures, and safety of Life, which you are not invested i • , not denying to hazard or ex • end all for me, when I call you to it, on behalf of my members:] And upon this ground, they are not only called Righteous, but adjudged to Life, verse. 46 And the Lord himself who spake these words, doth expound the word Righteous here by other words, in John 5. 29. Here he saith▪ And these shall go away into Everlasting punishment, but the Righteous into Life Eternal. And there he saith, [The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, They that have Done Good unto the resurrection of Life, and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation. Yet let none think, that because Christ maketh in all this no mention of his own satisfaction, and our Righteousness which consisteth in Remission of sin, that therefore there is none such by which we are Justified; for he here presupposeth the sinner Redeemed by him, and conditionally pardoned through his blood, and this to be out of doubt, and his performance of the Condition to be that which is questionable, and not whether Christ have done his part on the cross.
50. By all this it is most evident that all that shall be saved and Justified in judgment, yea or Constitutively, or estimatively in this life, must have a twofold Righteousness, one in the Remission of their sins by Christ's blood and grace, the other in the performance of that condition of pardon and salvation which the Gospel doth Impose: and that by both these a man is constituted Just now, (as I think all Divines confess) and because of both shall he be sentenced Just in Judgment. Yet with a very great difference both in the Reason and the Order of them, which must be carefully marked. For Christ's Righteousness doth Iustifie us Meritoriously, but so doth not our own performance of the Conditions. Our Unbelief and Impenitency do Merit our Damnation; and so we may yield that the Meritum Causae must be inquired after in Judgment: but our faith or any other act • ons merit not pardon or salvation. And for the order, observe it in respect of our first Justification, and of our continued Justification, and our sentential Justification. As to our first Justification (which Divines commonly mean alone when they treat of Justification) Our Remission of sin is only for the Merit of Christ, and in his blood: and I give not saith, or any act of man the least Copartnership with Christ's Righteousness▪ nor any share in this honor. Now seeing our Divines do commonly mean the Remission of sin, and the Accepting us as pardoned when they speak of Justification, and all this I ascribe to Ch • ists M •• itorious satisfactory Righteousness alone, and not at all to faith or works as any causes, I conceive, I grant them the thing that they contend f • r. Only our own faith and Repentance (without the present existence of external Gospel-works, much more without the works of Mosaical Ceremonies) are Conditions without which God will not pardon or Iustifie any man. The sinner being thus pardoned of free Grace, it being the nature of all Grace to Cooperate and mutually further each other, our after-Holiness and Obedience may well be called one End of our former Justification and pardon: for Christ did of purpose pardon us, that being cleansed from Guilt, we might be more capable of the further degrees of Grace, and Acceptable serving God: And that Holiness and Obedience which was in some respect one End of former pardon, is a Means to future pardon, and so on; every pre • edent work of Grace in pardoning or sanctifying having some tendency to the furthering of that which follows, and all being wonderfully linked by Divine wisdom in the blessed chain of our salvation. So that pardon may be both a means to Holyness, and Holyness or Holy acts some means to pardon, in several respects (though in the same respect they could not.) But in respect of our Sentential Justification by the Judge, our personal Righteousness is merely subordinate to the righteousness of Christ: (and so it is as to the Remission of our sin in this life: I mean as to the end of [Remitting]) even as the Condition is subordinate to the pardon or other Gift. So that it is to prove us to have Right in Christ and Life in and by him, that our own Faith, Repentance and Obedience, come to be questioned at that day, and to be so much of the cause of the day. Let no man therefore say, that I make our own Righteousness (personal) to be sharer with Christ's in the same office or honor▪ for I only make it a necessary subordinate to it, but not Coordinate at all: and this I do, because he hath done it. Yet if we speak of Righteousness, not as consisting in one species, Remission of sin, (for so Christ's Righteousness is the whole meritorious cause) but Universally, as containing all that Righteousness which we have, or are any way Justified by, so I say, Christ's Righteousness is the whole causally, both as to Merit and proper Efficiency, (for we have all from his blood alone, or his blood and Spirit, ) and so Christ's Righteousness procuring our pardon, may be said to be quasi Universalis, Universal in a sort, that is excepting only our performanc • of the said condition: when, alas, that is so small a part, tha • its mere grac • that gives it the name of righteousness, & the very defects of faith itself must be pardoned thorough Christ, or we perish. But yet • o • ay simply and absolutely, that our universal righteousness consisteth in pardon through Christ's blood, is plainly to say▪ the Saints are •• 〈…〉 ts, for they have nothing but sin, and have no inherent ha 〈…〉 • ctu • l Righteousness at all; (for nothing but sin is pardoned) 〈◊〉 which noth • ng more contrary to Scripture or the concurrent v •• e of all •• ber Christians of what Party soever (the Antinom •• ns I 〈…〉 this as sober.) Our own perfor 〈…〉 ce therefore hath but the na 〈…〉 • s it were of a particular Righteousness (though consisting in many particular acts) subordinate to Christ's Righteousness • : yet not such a particular Righteousness as even the worst man may have, but such a one as our Absolution or Condemnation Final and General dependeth on as its Condition; because God hath chosen the particular Matter of it to this great office. And whereas this particular Righteousness consisteth of our faith and repentance as the Condition of our Justification is first given, & of the Continuance of as faith and Repentance; with the fruits of new sincere obedience as the Conditions of the continuing or not-losing our Justification or pardon; so in Judgment, 1. If we are accused of final predominant Infidelity, w • must be Justified materially by faith; 2. If we are Accused of final Impenitency, we must be Justified by proving our Repentance▪ 3. If we be accused of final predominant Disobedience, we must be Justified by our works of obedience. 4. If of Hypocrisy, we must be Just • fied by our •• ncerity, appealing to the searcher of hearts; and, saith Dr. Preston, by our works: But they more immediately justify in the forementioned respect. And Christ mentioneth them in his description of the Judgment more then faith or Repentance, (perhaps as foreseeing how men would mistake here); because faith is visible and unquestionably implied in sincere obedience (and so is Repentance); but obedience is not implied as existent in faith and Repentance. Obedience is in them but as in semine, and in the Cause, but they are in obedience as the life of the tree is in the fruit, or the life of the Root in the ear of wheat, or as the life of the Heart appeareth in the lively motions and operations of the body.
If any say, It is not proved that there is any Accusation of the Saints at Judgment, or any such particular proceedings in their Justification; I Answ. 1. I am not now proving but confessing my own Judgment. Yet that Satan is the Accuser of the Brethren I know, and that we shall be Iudged according to what we have done in the body, whether it be Good or Evil, and must give an account for every idle word: and Christ will mention feeding or not feeding, clothing, or not clothing, visiting, or not visiting, as a Reason of his sentence: And he will call for an account of the particular talents, whether one, two, or ten. 2. We do not know how God will manage that Judgment, further then he hath revealed▪ But suppose, as is most probable, that Christ will dispatch all in a small time, and make no long and delatory work of it, yet if he do but open the eye of Conscience to see all as naked in a moment, he will reveal it in the true order of Causes and Effects, Antecedents and Consequents; and how one dependeth on another: This his own description of the Judgment plainly evinceth; and all this Order can he show to the soul in one moment. So that they who would from the spiritualness and speed of that Judgment, or from the perfection of the Saints deliverance by Justification in this life, argue against this Judgment, or the rational natural order of its proceeding, that in this Confusion they may hide their mistakes, do in vain contend against the clearest light of Scripture. And they that say we shall not be Justified in Judgment, but only Declared to be Justified here, do either say consequentially [we shall be condemned] or else [we shall not be Iudged at all,] seeing Judgment in general, is by Justification or Condemnation in special: and then they deny a main Article of the Creed, that Christ shall come again to Judge the quick and the dead. To Determine our Right by Authoritative Decision, and put it out of all further Controversy, and give us our Jus Judicatum, ( who had before but our Jus Constitutum,) and this as made prerequisite to our Possession of the Kingdom of Glory, and our Jus in re; all this, which is the work of Judgment, is somewhat more then bare declaration of what was done before. Though if it were no more, yet such a kind of Declaration as that is, may well be called Justification, and Absolution. And if by Declaration they mean a true Iudging, they say and unsay, contradicting themselves.
SECT. III.
The sum of my Judgment, with the sum of my Proofs.
HAving thus faithfully opened my thoughts, how much I give to any actions of man, I will adjoin some of those Texts of Scripture, at length, which persuade me hereunto, lest some negligent Readers will not be at the labor to turn to them in their Bibles.
The sum of my doctrine which I bring them to confirm, I contract into these heads. 1. That faith Justifieth not as an Instrumental efficient Cause, but as Conditio Applicans & disponens, The Applying and Disposing Condition: its Applicatory nature being the Aptitude to the office, and Its being the Condition of the Promise being the formal or nearest reason of its Interest.
2. That Repentance is Conditio disponens a Dispositive Condition of our first Justification.
3. That Covenant-keeping by sincere Love, Thankfulness and Obedience to God▪ Redeemer is a Condition of the Continuing, or notlosing our state of Justification.
4. That the Renewal of our Faith and Repentance, upon our lapses into discerned wounding sins, is a Condition of the particular pardon of those sins, and our Discharge or Justification from the guilt of them.
5. That all the foresaid Conditions, Faith, Repentance, Love, Thankfulness, sincere Obedience, together with final Perseverance, do make up the Condition of our final Absolution in Judgment, and our eternal Glorification.
6. That in the day of Judgment, seeing we must be Judged by the Gospel or New Covenant, and it will be no small part of the work of the day to inquire, Whether we have performed the Conditions of that Covenant which giveth us Christ, and Life and pardon, or not; we must therefore against the Accusation of non-performance (real or supposed) be Justified by our own Performance as our particula • Righteousness: and this is the Judging or Jusiifying us According to our Works, which Scripture mentioneth. And upon this will our universal and final Justification depend, as upon its Condition. And therefore whoever will be Justified at that day, must have a Justitia prolegalis or a Righteousness of Remission of sin through the blood of Christ, to plead against the Law, and also a personal Evangelical Righteousness, consisting in a performance of the Conditions of the Gospel or new Covenant, which is the Condition of our interest in the first; or else he cannot be Justified, (yet is this latter but subordinate to the former, as to that sentential Absolution. )
7. Seeing this twofold Righteousness is necessary to our Justification in Judgment, therefore it must needs follow that it is necessary to the making us Righteous, or our Constitutive Justification in this life (in the order before laid down): For the Law is the Rule of Judgment; and God Judgeth men to be as they are; and therefore he maketh them Righteous, both by Remission of all sin and by giving them to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant, before he judge them so.
Having thus given you the sum of my Judgment in these seven Propositions, I will not apply the cited Texts to each distinctly, it being done in the Margin already, but will only recite together those Texts, which force me to give this much to other Acts besides faith, (and to faith itself in the sense expressed); as against the general charge of those Brethren that have not feared to censure and defame me, as giving too much to works, yea as much as Bellarmine, and teaching an almost pure Socinian Justification.
And first I shall recite some of those texts that seem to give a Causalitie to man's actions, to the obtaining of God's favor, pardon and salvation which can be sure interpreted of nothing lower then a Condition, which is no proper Cause.
Luke 19 17. And he said unto him: Well, thou good servant! Because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten Cities.
Mat. 25. 21, 23. Well done, thou good and faithful servant! thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee Ruler over many thing • ; enter thou into the Joy of thy Lord.
Verse 34, 35, 40. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye gave me drink, &c. Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye have done it to one of the least of these my Brethren, ye have done it unto me.
46. And these shall go into everlasting punishment, but the Righteous into Life eternal.
Gen. 22. 6, 17, 18. By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, For because thou hast done this thing, and ha •• not withh • ld thy son, thine only son, that in Blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the Heaven, &c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast Obeyed my Voice.
Joh. 16. 27. For the Father himself Loveth you, because you have Loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
Joh. 3. 22, 23. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, Because we keep his Commandments, and Do those things that are Pleasing in his sight. And this is his Commandment, that we Believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ, and Love one another.
2 Chron. 34. 26, 27. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, &c. Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place▪ and against the Inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes and weep before me, I have even heard thee also satih the Lord.
Rev. 3. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my Patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come on all the world.
Psal. 91. 9, 14 Because thou hast made th. Lord, which is my refuge, even the most high, thy habitation, there shall no evil befall thee, &c. Because he hath set his Love upon me, therefore will I deliver him; I will set him on high, because he hath known my name: he shall call upon me, and I will answer him, I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him, and honor him; with long life will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation:
Mark 7. 29. And he said unto her, For this saying, go thy way, the Devil is gone out of thy Daughter.
Rev. 3. 4. They shall walk with me in white, For ( or because) they are Worthie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
So Rev. 7, 14, 15. Gen. 7. 1.
So those Scriptures that say we are Justified now, or shall be at Judgment, by other actions besides Faith: such as are these following.
Mat. 12. 36, 37. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgment. For by thy Words thou shalt be Justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
James 2. 24. Ye see then how that by Works a man is Justified, and not by faith only (Read the rest from verse 13. to the end of the Chapter.
Beza thinketh that Tit. 3. 7. and Rom. 8. 30. do in the term Justification comprehend both Remission of sin and Sanctification: And if that be so, then there is a Justification in Scripture mentioned, whereof Remission of sin is one part, and inherent Righteousness is another, both together making us perfectly Righteous or Justified, as Beza there intimates, on Tit. 3. 7. That being Justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life. Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he also Justified.
Luke 18. 13, 14. And the Publican standing afar off, would not lift up so muth as his eyes to heaven, but smote on his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner! I tell you this man went down to his house Justified rather then the other: For everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Rom 2. 13, 14. For not the Hearers of the Law are Just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be Justified; For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves: which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their Conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, in the day wh • n God shall Judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.
So those Texts that contain terms equipollent to Justification by works, or putting Judging for Justifying, and According to instead of [By]; or the like.
Rev. 20. 12, 13. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their Works And the Sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were Judged every man according to their Works.
2 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Wherefore we Labor that whether present or absent, we may be Accepted of him; For we must all appear before the Judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad; knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.
1 Cor. 3. 8, Every man shall receive his own Reward, according to his own Labor.
Joh. 5. 22, 27, 28, 29. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, And hath given him authority to execute Judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvail not at this▪ for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. They that have Done Good unto the Resurrection of Life, and they that have done Evil to the Resurrection of Damnation.
1 Pet. 1. 16, 17. Be Holy, for I am Holy: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons Iudgeth According to every man's Works, pass the time of your so journing here in fear.
Phil. 4. 17. I desire fruit that may abound to your Account.
Mat. 16. 27. For the Son of m • n shall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Act. 17. 30, 31. But now commandeth all men everywhere to Repent, because he hath appointed a day, in which he will Judge the world in Righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained.
Mat. 13. 49. So shall it be at the end of the world, the Angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the Just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. 43. Then shall the righteous shine as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father.
2 Cor. 9. 6. But this I say. He which soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly: and he which soweth bountifully shall reap bountifully.
Vers. 9. As it is written, he hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor; his Righteousness remaineth forever.
Gal. 6. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. But let every man prove his own work▪ and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap Corruption: but he that • oweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap Life everlasting. And let us not be weary of well-doing: for in due season we shall Reap, if we faint not. As we have opportunity therefore, let us do good to all men, &c.
Psal. 58. 11. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a Reward for the Righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
2 Tim▪ 4. 7, 8. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my Course, I have kept the Faith▪ Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness, which the Lord the Righteous Judge shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but to them also that love his appearing.
Heb. 6. 10. God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor, &c. Col. 3. 23, 24. Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord, not to men: knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the Inheritance.
Heb. 11. 26. For he had respect to the Recompence of Reward, (viz. in choosing affliction with the people of God, &c.)
2 Thes. 1. 5, 6. Which is a manifest token of the Righteous Judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer. Seeing it is a Righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you who are troubled, Rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, &c.
Mat▪ 5. 12, 46. Rejoice, for great is your Reward in Heaven. If ye love them that love you, what Reward have you?
Mat. 10. 41, 42. He that Receivet a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophets Reward: and he that receiveth a righteou • man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's Reward: And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little Ones, a cup of cold water only in the name of a Disciple, Verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his Reward.
Mat. 6. 1 2, 4 6. That thine Alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret, himself shall Reward thee openly. When thou hast shut thy door. Pray to thy father which is in secret: and thy father which s • eth in secret, shall Reward thee openly.
1 Cor 9. 17. If I do this willingly, I have a Reward.
Col. 2. 18. Let no man beguile you of your Reward.
Mat. 19. 29. Everyone that hath forsaken houses or Brethren; &c. for my Names sake, shall receive an hundred • ol • , and shall inherit everlasting Life.
Luke 16. 9. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
So all those texts that promise pardon, or Glory on condition of man's Actions.
Isa. 1. 16, 17, 18. Wash you • make you clean: put away the Evil of your doings from before mine eyes: cease to do evil, Learn to do well, seek Judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow; Come now and let us Reason together saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like Crimson, they shall be like wool.
Isa. 55, 6 7. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, Call ye upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Act. • . 38. Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remissions of sins.
Acts 3. 19. Repent ye therefore and be Converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come, &c.
Mark 1. 4. John did baptize, and preach the baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins.
Luke 13. 3, 5. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. So Rev. 2. 5 16, 22. & 3. 19 Act. 8. 22. with many the like.
1 Joh. 1. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Rom. 10. 8, 9, 10, 13. The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: For with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness, and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.
Mat. 6. 14, 15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Act. 10. 35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness, is Accepted with him.
Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the tree of Life, and may enter in by the gate into the City.
Joh. 12. 26. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be; If any man serve me, him will my father honor.
Rom. 8. 13. If ye live afteer the flesh ye shall die: but if ye by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Mat. 5. 20. Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Read all that Chapter.
Ezek. 33. 11. 16. As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die O house of Israel! 14. 16. If he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right, &c. None of his sins that he hath committed, shall be mentioned to him, &c.
Ezek. 18. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive; because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live he shall not die, &c. Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so Iniquity shall not be your ruin, &c.
Rom. 2. 5, 6, 7, 10.— Revelation of the Righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man According to his Deeds: To them who by patient Continuance in well-doing, seek for Glory and Honor, and Immortality, Eternal Life; Glory, Honor and Peace, to every man that worketh good, &c.
1 Tim. 4. 8. But Godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
1 Joh. 3. 7. Little children, let no man deceive you: He that doth Righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Rev. 14. 13. Wait; Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, from henceforth yea saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, and their works do follow them.
Heb. 5. 9. He became the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him.
Joh. 14. 21. He that Loveth me, shall be loved of my father, and I will love him, &c.
Mat. 10. 37, 38. He that loveth Father or Mother more then me, is not worthy of me, &c.
1 Cor. 16, 22. If any man Love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha.
Prov. 28. 13. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy.
Mat. 7. 21, 24. Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my father, &c. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them, I will liken him to a wise m • n that built his house on a Rock, &c.
Luke 11. 28. 1 Tim 6. 18, 19. That they m • y do good, be rich in good works, laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
1 Cor. 9. 24, 25, 26, 27. Mat. 11. 12. Luke 13. 24▪ Phil. 2. 12. Psal. 2. 12. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, &c.
Mat. 11. 28, 29, 30. Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest: Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.
So those texts that describe the contrary d • mning sin.
Luke 19. 27. Those mine enemies that would not I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.
Joh. 3. 19. This is the condemnation that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, b • cause their deeds were evil, See verse. 20.
See James 1. 12. Mat. 10. 22. Rev 2. 7, 11, 17, 26. He that overcometh and keepeth my works to the end, &c. And 3, 5, 12, 21 I will add no more: but entreat the Reader to lay by the prejudicing Comments of each party while he • mpartially weigh • these words of God; and then let him judge as the Lord shall direct him.
THus I have given the offended part of my brethren a true and full account of my judgment, how much I give to Works, and how much I deny to them in this matter of Justification. Which yet I do with this protestation. 1. That I intend not all this as the Articles of my Creed, or as being all of it of necessity to Salvation to be believed, nor would I obtrude it on others, if I had power, nor is it all of equal moment. 2. That I do not peremptorily fix upon any part of it that is doubtful or controvertible among learned Godly men, so as not to hear any reason against it; but am ready to lay it by, when I can by my utmost industry and God's illumination procure so much more light as to discern my mistakes. 3. That if there be ever a word in this contrary to that General Creed or Confession which I made in the beginning, or contrary to the Scripture, I do now in the general and implicitly disclaim it; and when I see it particularly, I will particularly Renounce it, and Correct it.
And the Reasons of my being so large on this Point, are these two. 1. Because Mr. Crandon doth so frequently and uncharitably accuse me of subtle reserves, and dissimulation, and hiding the worst, and meaning one thing, when I write another; I have therefore opened my mind to the full, reserving nothing that I can remember, of moment, as to the point in hand, but showing how much I give to man; Yea, I have studied to say the very utmost for Holiness and Obedience, that was in my thoughts, that they who account this Popery, may see the worst.
2. Also many do follow me with importunity to Reprint my Aphorisms, whilst others do hold my hands. To satisfy these in the mean time, I have Anticipated much of them in these Conclusions, and given them the sum of what I mean to say on this point more largely (though I be put to repeat much of this again:) Or if God will not let me live to do that work, and publish my thoughts more fully, yet these conclusions have discovered so much of them, as may acquaint men with my meaning in the main, in this point, that they mistake me not so grossly as some formerly have done.
But yet I have something more to add: For though this be the sum of my thoughts on this point, as to the matter, and I will not differ to contending, with any that agree with me in the thing, and disagree in words only; and though I verily think that it is most in mere words that I differ from those Reverend brethren who have given me their Animadversions on these points; Yet because even verbal mistakes may introduce real, or the Verbal and the Real are not by all discerned asunder, and lest any think I make a greater matter of any terms or Notions of my own, then indeed I do, I will say something of my judgment about the very terms which there is so much strife about in the Churches.
SECT. IV.
Of the Verbal Differences.
1. THere is so great Ambiguity in the term Works, that I think it occasioneth much of our contentions. 1. By works may be meant in general, any good action: or 2. More specially, such actions as a Workman doth for his wages, making it Debt, for the benefit that may redound thereby to another, by way of commutative Justice. 3. Or else for perfect obedience according to the Law of Nature as made to perfect man in innocence 4. Or for the doing of the task of services in Moses Law, in themselves considered; which was specially called Works. 1. Because of the laborious, external, endless task of duty which it contained: and 2. Because of the costliness of the Sacrifices, in whose value they much trusted. 3. Because of God's own institution of them, which (mistaking the end) they the more confided in. 5. For Actions which are conceited Meritorious (when indeed they are not,) though not upon the terms of commutative Justice, yet of distributive. 6. For any action which is done more for another's good then our own: Either, when men conceit they advantage God, or when they help men. Especially when they are costly actions: as giving to the poor, building Alms-houses, Colleges, Churches, &c. 7. For sincere obedience to the Lord that bought us, according to the gracious terms of the Gospel 8 • or the External part of this obedience, distinct from Love, Trust, &c. And perhaps there may yet more senses be remembered. Concerning this I lay down these Propositions.
1. Paul never took Works in the first sense, so as to exclude them from being conditions of Justification: For then he should have excluded Faith and Repentance.
2. Nor did he so take them in the seventh or eighth sense, excluding them from being conditions of our final Justification.
3. James took not Works in the same sense as Paul▪ For the Works that James speaks of were necessary, but the Works that Paul mentions might not be attempted or imagined, which make the reward to be not of Grace but of debt; and the Works of Jewish Ceremonies cease.
4. Because it is the Scripture Phrase to call Evangelical obedience by the name of Works, therefore no man is to be blamed simply for so doing.
5. Yet is there so great a difference between Gospel-obedience, and both Mosaical Ceremonies, and the perfect fulfilling of the first Law, or any conceited Merits, that we should keep that difference as apparent as we can; and therefore not use the term Works, (which Paul so appropriates to the other sorts) when there is any jealousy whether you mean not one of the other sort of works; unless you explain yourself in the use. And therefore ordinarily the terms Obedience, or Repentance, Love, &c. are fitter then the term Works.
6. For though no creature can Merit of God in Commutative Justice, yet Adams works were, 1. As much in weight and number as God in Justice could require of perfect man. 2. And they were to be more in giving out to the honor of God, and less in direct receiving: though yet he did receive in all. Our works are nothing to what is due for number or weight; and they are all so purely receptive, that though we must aim at God's Glory, yet it is at the Glorifying of Free-Grace, wherein we are receivers. Faith is the acceptance of Christ and life freely given: Love is but the mode or nature of that acceptance, respecting the goodness of the Object. Repentance is but an emptying our hands of dung, that they may be fit to receive Gold. Lamentation, Humiliation, and open confession of sin, are but proclaimings of the freeness of Grace, and telling God and men how much we are unworthy of it, and deserve the contrary: or else preparations to make our hearts fit to taste and value the freeness of Grace.
SECT. V.
2. THe word Merit also is very ambiguous. 1. Sometime it is materially taken for that which by the proportion of its worth to another deserveth somewhat answerable in Commutative Justice. In this sense our Divines use the word, against the Papists commonly, when they say that which Meriteth, must not be due to the other, must advantage him, must be proportioned to the Reward, &c. 2. Sometime it is taken for some desert by eminent service for the Commonwealth, above what the Law of that Commonwealth imposeth: as David's killing Goliath; the acts of his worthies, Samson's exploits, &c. which a Rector, as such, among men, is obliged in Justice to Reward, both for the common good thereby advanced, and for encouraging of gallant men. 3. Sometime it is taken for desert by so perfect obedience to the Rector as is very eminent and exemplary, or as perfect as he can require: Such as Adams in Paradise should have been. 4. Sometime it is taken for an act of mere love, supposed to deserve a return of love, though the party beloved receive no benefit by it. 5. Sometime for some eminent expression of that love, as by venturing ones life, or losing limbs or life in another's cause, and for his sake, though he receive no benefit by it. 6. Sometime for very great sufferings or losses sustained in the execution of some commands, which it is supposed deserve some reparation, or benefit from the Commander: as maimed Soldiers deserve to be maintained. 7. Sometime it is improperly taken, for the performance of any condition to which a Reward is promised by the Rector, though it advantage him not, and have no proportion to the Reward, and were itself due; yet because the work pleaseth him, as being a thing he loveth, therefore he promiseth the Reward, and upon these two grounds conjunct▪ the vertuousness of the work, and the Obligation of the promise, they call the performance of the condition, Merit: much more, if any of the former concur. 8. Sometime it is taken for any performance of the condition of a Promise or Gift, though the nature of the condition be not so much positively to please, as negatively not to displease. As in a free gift, where naturally among all men these three conditions are supposed. 1. That you reject not, nor despise the gift, but accept it. 2. That you be not unthankful. 3 That you abuse not him that gave it, as to spit in his face, or se • k his dishonor or death. And though the acts may be positive, yet it is rather a not displeasing, then a positive pleasing, which they are required for. 9 Sometime it is taken for any duness of a Benefit or Right to a thing, though by absolute gift, or natural Inheritance, &c. 10. Sometime for a mere comparative worthiness: as when two men, who do neither of them properly deserve well, yet one is far better then the other, and is said to be more deserving then he, that is, less undeserving: Or if one of them must have the benefit, he is the fitter. 11. Sometime for any acquisition. 12. And sometime it is taken in sensu forensi, for the Merit of the cause, as to the judgment to be passed. And so Lawyers say that every cause hath Evidence and Merit: and they define Merit, thus, Meritum causae est in quantum Juri Congruit, quod recte estimatur ex sententia juris & aequitate, as Dr. Zouch saith. 13. Sometime it is taken for the fitness of anything in Nature, Art or Morality, to be esteemed and denominated good, according to its Nature. As every good Work, or gracious inclination deserveth to be esteemed as it is. So he that performeth Christ's conditions, deserveth to be esteemed or Judged a performer, and not a non-performer thereof. For everything is worthy to be judged to be what it is. So Goodness or Amability is called Merit, because everything deserves to be loved and accepted, so far as it is good and lovely: and consequently to be lovingly used. 14. Lastly, Merit is oft taken in an ill sense, commonly called Demerit, for the desert of some evil.
Now among all these senses, it is not fair to condemn any man of Error for the bare use of the word, till you know what sense he takes it in. Yet do Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. make me as bad or worse then any Papists, who own not the very word at all, in that whole book, which they write against: But only say, that improperly and largely it maybe thus taken, that is, will bear such a sense.
All these forementioned sorts of Merit are not properly called Merit. I was about setting down how many of them may be owned, and how many not, in our case, as to the matter, without looking to the propriety of the term Merit. But it would be too long, and you may partly gather it from what is said before, and it is not hard to see it in the nature of the thing, for the most of them. And therefore leaving everyone to judge of the Matter as they see cause, How far Man hath any of these things, by men called Meritorious? I shall only speak to the very Word, according to my intent. And I shall speak my thoughts in these two conclusions following.
1. I do think it unfit to use the term Merit of any Actions of man, as to God's Mercies or Rewards, and that Divines should agree together to disuse it, and reject it, and express their minds by some fitter terms.
My Reasons are these. 1. Mans heart is proud enough without such Instigations: We have more need to contrive all the most effectual convenient means, for the destroying of this most dangerous Master sin: and even to fit the very terms of our Doctrine to this end. And though the matter that some intend by the term Merit, have no tendency in itself to our puffing up, and we must not disclaim obedience, for fear of being proud of it, yet the term doth so strongly savor of more then any sober Christian may arrogate to himself, that I think it unsafe.
2. Or if it should not be so to the judicious, yet it is to the vulgar, who will use the word in imitation of them, when they cannot imitate them in the Caution and Interpretation.
3. The holy Scripture useth this term sparingly (I mean the words of the same signification) if at all; which many learned men do question. And we have great reason to use it as sparingly.
4. In its most proper sense, as it signifieth that which is Not due; which is to the benefit of another; which hath any proportion to the Reward, &c. Yea, or but any one of these, it cannot be used by us but with arrogant presumption, and such, as if it be heartily done, is destructive to our Christianity, and inconsistent with sincerity. It is not fit therefore ordinarily to use a phrase, though improperly, which is so dangerous in the proper signification. We know how we speak it, but we know not how others will understand and receive it.
5. The estate of man since his fall is so depraved and miserable, that it beseems him to speak in answerable language. For the poor to speak proudly, a sinner to use Arrogant terms, is an unnatural and inexcusable Error.
6. It sounds as a contradiction to the very design of the Gospel. God hath contrived the abasing of man before he glorify him, and the honoring of Christ and Free-Grace by man's humiliation: and to take men off all conceits and confidence of proper Meriting, before he ever give them a taste of Reconciling Grace. Now to use such arrogant words, how well soever we mean, is to cast a stumbling block in the way of our Brethren, and to make an appearance of resisting Christ, and sacrilegiously violating the Temple of his Glory. All Christ's true friends and followers should be tender of his honor, and study the advancement of his blessed ends, especially being so sweetly suited to our Necessities, as the way of Love and Free-Grace is; and not causelessly to run into such foul appearances and occasions of evil.
7. The very Phrase of Merit (if I may judge of others by myself) hath somewhat in it that is ungrateful, and of a displeasing sound to a Christian ear. I never hear it applied to man's actions towards God, but me thinks there is something within me that disliketh and abhorreth it. The very work of the spirit of God upon a Christians heart, abasing him in himself, and carrying him out to Christ, hath methinks a Reluctancy against, and a distaste of such terms as these, and is offended at them, as the senses at that which doth annoy them. And how unfit and dangerous a course it is, for Ministers to use such words, which sound so ungratefully to every gracious soul, is not hard to Judge. For my own part, it never entered into my thoughts, to my remembrance, to approve either of the term or proper sense, how ever Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. unworthily wrest my words, quite contrary to the most evident sense of them, and the whole scope of the place.
The Lord and my own Conscience know, that my Iniquities are more before mine eyes, and a greater burden is upon my heart; then will suffer me to trust in any Merits of my own, or once to dream that I have such a thing. And though the desire of my soul is to walk with God, and I have tasted of his unspeakable love in his holy ways, and perceived that there only it is that he will be found, and by all the strivings of his spirit against my flesh, and all the workings of Grace upon any depraved heart, I well perceive how God loveth Holiness, and delighteth in Purity, and faithful obedience, and therefore by the Grace of God, I will never think or speak basely and contemptuously of the image of my Lord▪ to gain the reputation of being Orthodox among the most honorable of the sons of men, much less with such as Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. Nor will I sin against the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier of the Church, by slighting his blessed work; Yet I seriously profess, that among all the temptations of my life, I have felt so little temptation to dream of Merit, or to take any boldness with God upon confidence of the worth of anything in myself, or to be lifted up before him upon a conceit of my good deservings, that I know not the best work that ever I did in my life, which doth not more humble me then exalt me, when I review it. I am so Conscious that I have nothing but what I received, and that it is God that worketh both to Will and to Do, and that without Christ I can do nothing, and that my best Actions are so lamentably defective and corrupted, that without abundant pardoning Grace in Christ, they will sink me to Hell, that I look with shame and sorrow on the best of my Works: I know my heart hath pride in it as well as others, and too oft do I feel it stirring in respect to the judgment of man, and otherways against God; but should I glory or trust in any Merit of my works, I should even be brutish in contradicting such a Sun of Evidence, and such lively sense of my own heart. May I take leave to open my heart in this point, and to speak what I feel there, and to lay by all my other grounds that while? it is thus with me: When I review any duty or work that ever I did, I feel no consolation accrue to my soul from it, as a work, or in respect to its value, but merely Negative: that is, I escape the disquiet and trouble which would follow the contrary: The comfort that I have in this respect is positively none at all: Only I find no reason to discomfort myself for those sins which I never committed, (so far:) Were I a Drunkard, Adulterer, Murderer, &c. I might from the demerit of these expect more sorrow then I have. But yet in other respects I find a positive comfort from Holiness, and Obedience: As conditions of Salvation, they are conditions or occasions of my positive comforts; but not the cause. But as God's Image, and the things which he loves, & sub quorum ration, he loveth the soul that hath them. (I am loath to say for them, lest it be mistaken,) so I find them positively comfortable; as making me a capable object of his Love. And yet further▪ as they do incline the soul to God, and dispose it to Communion with him, in holy Desires, Prayers, Prayses, in the exercise of Faith, Love, Delight, Confidence, Hope, &c. so I find they are Causes of my Comforts. But I must needs say, that it is far harder to me in these kinds to take half that comfort in my Graces and Duties which I should take, then not to take too much: and I have no need of an Antinomian at my elbow to hinder these consolations, and to say to me, Take heed that you make not Holiness and Duty the Occasion, or cause of your comfort, lest you be a Papist: For I have Satan at my elbow, as it were pleading more effectually, diverting me from that Duty, diminishing the exercise of those Graces, without which God will not be enjoyed, nor my soul maintained in a comfortable frame. To have comfort and spiritual delights in God, from my Graces or Duties in any of these allowable ways, is no such easy matter with me, as that I should need such breath to cool my comforts. I think that were all one, as to say I have need of help to make me less holy, and to destroy my Graces and Communion with God. For the souls Delight and Complacency in God is the height of its Holiness, and the top of all its duties. I do not say that I have no temptation to Carnal confidence in Duties, or that I am not guilty of any such sin; But sure I am, when I take all the helps of consolation together, the Love of God, the Blood of Christ, the Glory promised, the Evidences of my interest, &c. I have more ado to reach to the thousandth part of that delight and satisfaction of mind which I should have, then to keep it under.
And in this my experience answereth my judgment of the interest of our own Works or Graces in our Comforts. For if we look to the value of them, and the matter of strict Merit, I ever took that which some call Merit to be but▪ A not Meriting the contrary. Even Adam in innocence, had he so continued, had more fitly been said to have not deserved death, then to have deserved-life. And they that believe and obey the Redeemer, may be said, Not to have Merited the loss of Christ and life by a final Rejection of him▪ (though in other respects they might) then to have Merited a part in Christ and life by believing and obeying. Yet dare I not say that holiness and duty hath no positive interest in the pleasing of God▪ because it hath none by way of strict merit: Nor dare I think that it is but Absentia contrarii, and not to be unholy formally that he expecteth: for so a tree or a stone should please God as well as a Saint. And the state of the glorified Saints would soon confute me. So much against the use of the term merit, and in explication and confirmation of the Negative Proposition.
Prop. 2. Aff. Yet where I meet with any sober Oothodox Christians, who use the word Merit as applied to man's Actions towards God, meaning thereby no more then is meet: though the term be unfit, I will not accuse such of Popery, or other false doctrine, nor alienate myself from them, nor defame them to the world; but will detest the practices of those that so do.
My Reasons for this resolution are such, as I dare say, all moderate, judicious Divines will allow, what ever furious, factious firebrands may imagine of them.
Reas. 1. The Fathers, and the whole Church of Christ, so far as we are able to judge by their writings, did use the word merit (the Latin Writers) or one of like signification (as the Greek Writers did) for above a thousand years after Christ, for ought I find, without so much as one contradicting voice. And what man that is a Christian doth not so much Reverence those ancient Worthies, and the whole Church, as to deal tenderly and honorably with them for a word, when they agree with us in sense? And what man that would seem to be a Protestant, dare make all these Fathers, and the whole Primitive Church to be Papists? that hath not a design hereby to set up Popery? For were that true, what sober man would not be strongly tempted to be a Papist?
Reas. 2. All our Protestant Divines that vindicate our Doctrine against the Papists, in this point (so far as I can remember) do unanimously endeavor to vindicate the Fathers & first Churches, from Doctrinal Popery herein, and do interpret the term Merit, as signifying no more then we confess: and so are tender of the honor of the Fathers and Church.
Reas: 3. The first Protestant Princes▪ Churches and Divines, from whom the Reformed Churches had the name of Protestants, in the Augustine Confession (which then was, and still is taken for the fullest test of the Protestant Doctrine among those Churches) do ordinarily use the word Merit. As, Artic. sidei praecip. Art. 6. Semper igitur sentiendum est nos consequi Remissionem peccatorum & personam pronunciari justam, id est, Acceptari gratis propter Christum, per fidem. Postea vero placere etiam obedientiam erga leg • m & reputari quandam justi • iam, & mereri praemia, &c. & de bonis operib: Quanquam igitur haec nova obedientia procul abest à perfection legis, tamen est Justitia, & meretur praemia, ideo quia personae reconciliatae sunt: & postea, Debet ad haec dona accedere exercitatio nostra, quae & conservat ea & meretur incrementum, juxta illud, habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus praeclare dixit: Dilectio meretur incrementum Dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur, &c. & de Confess. Monemus & illud: saepe puniri peccata etiam temporalibus poeni • in hac vita; ut David, Manasseh, & alii multi puniti sunt. Et has poenas mitigari docemus bonis operibus, & universa poenitentia: sicut docet, Paulus, si nos ipsos judicaremus, non judicaremur à domino. Et poenitentia meruit ut Deus sententiam de delenda Nineveh mutaret.
Reas. 4. The Wittenburg Confession useth the word Merit in like manner: yet it is well known that the Lutherans were drawn by the Flac • ian party, to run into the extreme, in detracting from good works: as is too evident in many of their writings, Lege Con. schlusselburg. Contra Majoristas & Vossii Thes. de bonis operibus, & Melchior. Adamum in vita Georgii Majoris.
Reas. 5. Our most Renouned Protestant Divines do use the term Merit. Melancthon useth it in his Apology for the Augustine Confession: He and Luther, with the rest of their party, used it in that Confession. Calvin, Bucer and others of chiefest eminency, who are esteemed as of another party, did subscribe to that Confession. As many of the rest did offer to do, and the Lutheran Churches do to this day. And I take the Churches in Denmark, Sw • den, Saxony, &c. to be Protestants.
Reas. 6. We have made the terms [ deserving, and merit ] somewhat less culpable, by using them familiarly in an improper sense ourselves in our common speech. As is plain in the several instances given, when I opened the divers uses of this word. For example; First, In sensu forensi: we have so used the term Meritum Causae, that it is not very easy to find out another that shall sufficiently supply its place, and be well understood. And we call it Meritum Causae, and say, The cause deserves that the person be justified, even in case of a mere falls accusation brought against him; because everything and cause deserveth to be Judged as it is. 2. In a legal sense, we have used to say, that an obedient subject deserveth protection, and a valiant soldier deserveth encouragement, &c. though perhaps the Prince were never the better for them, because the ends of his Government require this. 3. In a domestical Government, we commonly say, when one child is loving, thankful and obedient to the father, when others are disobedient, and contemn him, that he deserveth the love of the father, and consequently the benefits which are the fruits of that love. 4. In Ethical respect, we are wont to say, that goodness deserves our love. Good actions or good persons, or those that love us, or those that run any great hazards, or suffered much in love to us, deserve to be loved again. 5. Yea, we give the praise of merit commonly to bruits themselves, for some excellencies of nature wherein they excel others. Yet there is so great a distance between God and us, that we should be less bold in our expressions.
Reas. 7. The Scripture useth these words, which we well translate Worthiness, Reward, &c. And how much these are related to merit; and of how near importance they are to [ merit ] I leave to consideration. Mr. Eyre saith, that the Scripture useth these improperly; and then why should I censure that man as erroneous, that useth a word of so near signification or importance improperly?
Reas. 8. Yet nearer; Whether the Scripture contain not those terms applied to man's actions, which may be translated meriting, or merit, &c. some doubt upon these grounds. • . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are found in Scripture: whether these signify meriting and merit, as well as worthy and worthiness, needs not much enquiry, if we stand to the common Judgment of Lexicons and Authors. Vid. Math. Martinium Lexic. in verbo Mereor. Perottus, Merere & Mereri significat Dignum esse, cum post se accusandi casum habet, &c. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is commonly translated Dignus. Vid. etiam Martinium in adverbio Merito, et nomine, Meritum. Perot. Dignum dicimus quod Meretur, Scalig. l. 4. Poet. c. 10. Graeci 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicunt: unde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sententiae quae omnium consensu dignae sunt ut suapte natura sine ulla probatione verae credantur. Erit igitur Dignitas conditio personae, que putatur aut ab omnibus, aut à pluribus, aut à melioribus Digna vel laude vel praemio. And meritum is commonly defined (as Martin. noteth) Actio qua Justum est ut agenti aliquid detur. It is a Righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled, Rest with us, when, &c. 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7, 8. As a Righteous Judge he shall give the Crown of Righteousness to all that love his appearing, 2 Tim. 4. 8. He is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love, Heb. 6. 10. saith Martin. Merito est secundum Jus▪; ex Justa ration seu causa: How commonly do Philosophers, Zabarel, Zuingerus, Scheggius, and others, saith Goclevius, Lexic. Philosop. in Merito, use the word Merito even for Per or Gratia, and all Latin Authors use meritissime & meritissimo, pro optimo Jure. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Beza, proprie de eo dicitur quod aequalis est ponderis ac momenti, translatione à ponderandi ration sumpta. And from the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 8. 18. He concludeth, Sophistae multa de Merito congrui & condigni nugantur; quorum tamen doctrina vel ex hoc loco optime refellitur. And if à negatione 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Merit may be directly confuted; then they think that from those Texts that assert it, and use that word, the use of the term meriting will be justified. And Beza renders it ibid. Minime. Pares, and saith, Ita{que} 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recte & proprie usurpavit quod nomen testantur Gramatici de iis dici quae appensa ejusdem ponderis inveniuntur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod quae preponderant lancem attrahant. If so, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are words of as high a signification as Meritum, and need as much an acknowledgement of impropriety, when applied to man's actions towards God. Tho. Grotius saith, in Mat. 10 10. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Graecis & quae huic respondent Hebraeis ac Latinis non semper▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sed qualemcun{que} rei convenientiam not at ut liquet, Eph. 4. 1. Phil. 1. 27. Col. 1. 10. 1 Thes. 2. 20. 3 Joh. 6. But whether the word be taken largely or strictly, if it signify Meritus, the word Merit may seem to be as fitly used, either more largely or strictly. Now that this word is so used of us, and our actions in the New Testament, is plain, 2 Thes. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer. And next follows, for it is a Righteous thing with God, to recompense, &c. Luk. 20. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, Luk. 21. 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that ye may be accounted worthy to escape, Rev. 3. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : for they are worthy, Luk. 10. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The laborer is worthy of his wages. So on the evil part, Rom. 1. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : worthy of death, and in Job 11 6 the septuagint have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that God exacteth of thee less then thine iniquity deserveth, a • our translation hath it. It seemeth then that there are words in Scripture used as to man's actions Godward, which signify properly Merit, and therefore must be taken improperly; and so may the word Merit, on the same ground, as well as the word Worthy, which we use in our translation. The same may be said of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is oft used, 1 Tim. 1. 18. the same with that in Luke before cited, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Heb. 11. 6. God is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A Rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And his action in rewarding is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Great Recompence of Reward; or giving the Reward by way of recompense. And its said of Moses, Heb. 11. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; he had respect to the Recompence of Reward. Many times is the like word used by Christ and his Apostles. Its true as Grotius saith, that the Hebrew and Greek words, Promiscue Mercedis & Doni habent significationem: quo magis apparet non eam essem vim hujus vocis ut aequalitatem inter sactum & rem desideret. But then he addeth withal: sed neque Latina vox id exigit. Est quidem Merces, ut Varro vult, à merendo: at Merere aut Me • eri Latinis veteribus erat consequi▪ Merces ea quam Deus rependit obedientiae nostrae fundamentum habet in liberali & miserecordi ipsius promissione. Alioqui non digna sunt quae hic patimur, glorioso praemio quod nobis obventurum est. Grot. in Mat. 6. 3. And on Jam. 2. p. 14. he saith also, (mentioning that of Cyprian, preceptis ejus & monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant Merita nostra Mercedem) Quo in loco, & veterum aliis, vox Meriti, sic sumenda est, sicut vox Mercedes, non apud ipsos tantum sed & in sacris literis, Mat. 5. 12. & 10. 42. Luk. 6▪ 35. 1 Cor. 3. 14. • imirum non ex aequalitate operis & retributionis, quae hic certe nulla est. Sed ex liberalissima promissione quae laborantibus nobis Jus dat; ita ut hoc negotium ad Donationem sub conditione, quam ad proprie dictam locutionem & condictionem, cui contractui agnatae Mercedis & Merendi voces, propius accedat: quo sensu etiam Paulus dicit redditurum Deum piis secundum ipsorum opera, Rom. 2. 6. quorum operum explicatio 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per complexione est, Mat. 25. circa finem, redditurum scilicet Judicio non rigido, sed mira quadam clementia temperato, & directo ad naturam benigniss • mi foederis per & propter Christum facti. Moreover, our Divines take the Latin word Merces, not only to be tolerable, but to be Scripture sense, for they oft retain it in our translations of the Scripture: But it seems the word Meritum hath nothing in it, which should make it much more improper then Merces: for they are both Relatives: and they come both from Mereor.
I must entreat the judicious Reader not to mistake my end in all this, nor to suppose me to conclude contrary to my former Proposition. I stand between two extremes, and therefore must speak against both. I only hence conclude, that therefore we should not too much quarrel about the bare word, when we agree in sense: nor should we censure any for the bare use of the word Merit, as erring in Doctrine, when it seems to him to be a term warranted by Scripture: But yet where Scripture itself useth a term improperly, we should in our disputes lay by such terms usually, if we have more proper; and where use hath made a term dangerous to the souls of men, it may be fit to forbear it, without necessity, or explication. I have said the more also of this, that it may appear to all impartial Readers, on what grounds, and with what Truth and Modesty Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. charge me with Error, and flat Popery; because that when I was speaking against Merit, I yielded that improperly, and in a larger sense, as Promise is an Obligation, and the thing promised is called Debt or Due, so the performers of the Condition are called worthy▪ and their performance Merit, though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt. I appeal to any competent Judge, whether these men do not hereby make all the Fathers and Churches of Christ to be Papists, till about Islebius his days; or at least for above 1000. years after Christ (and I think between that and Luther's time, the doctrine of Merits was not much decayed)? Yea, some will doubt whether they make not Christ and his Apostles Papists? and then no wonder if they make Luther, Melancthon, and all the Protestants that subscribed the Augustine Confession, to be Papists: yea, Bucer, Calvin, and many of the most eminent Divines of his Judgment, who also subscribed, and offered to subscribe the same Confession. I had as live be a Papist with all these, as an Antinomian, calling myself a Protestant. And I think I have said enough to manifest that the Spirit of these two Brethren's writings, is not so like the Spirit of Christ, that covereth his people's fa • lings, but never accuseth them for truth and duty, as to the Spirit of that professed Accuser of the Brethren, and enemy to the Truth.
SECT. VI.
I Will add these two things concerning the Matter of Merit, having said all this about the Name. 1. All the duties and graces of a Believer are so far from meriting of God properly, and according to Commutative Justice, as we did God any good by it which should oblige him to a Retribution, that they do oblige us much more to God then we were before. For that which is a duty in one respect, and a grace in another, is indeed a choice part of our mercy; and the more we do for God, the more we receive; not only by way of Reward, but in the very Duty: nay Doing itself is but in some respect a receiving from God, and in some respect, a means to further Receiving. When ever the soul is moved to Love, Humility, Thankfulness, Desire, &c. it receives this grace, and a precious mercy it is: and in the exercise it receiveth more: To Love God is some degree of enjoying him: Even to give all we have for him at his Call, is a receiving from him. Honest hearers do understand this mystery, though Hypocrites and Pharisees do not.
2. Though I say that no Angel is capable of such proper meriting of God, yet I do not intend, that sinful man can merit as far as Angels or Adam in innocence might have been said to do: No nor that our working now, is in the main parts, of that nature as Adams then was. His was, the perfect obedience of a perfect Creature, from the power of nature and that Grace which was without proper Merit, for the continuance of that perfection, and the attainment of more. Ours is the imperfect Obedience of a sinner freely pardoned upon his believing and repenting, which obedience mainly consisteth in the Accepting of mercy, and using it for Recovery, and it is performed and accepted by Gospel grace, which is against or contrary to merit, and not only without it. I will explain all by this familiar comparison. A Father hath one son at full age, who having the full use of Reason and strength, is able and fit to do him answerable service. He will give the inheritance to this son, because he is a son, out of mere Paternal Love, and not of merit of the son: yet because he is an honest virtuous man, he loveth not his son as a son so dearly, but that he would reject him if he were a wicked, rebellious son, such as God commanded the Jews themselves to put to death: And therefore he requireth his son to walk obediently and lovingly, as the son of such a Father should do, and not dishonor him, and then he will of fatherly love bestow on him the inheritance; but if he will not, he will disinherit him. Here the merit of the inheritance is no proper merit, but a Not-meriting to be deprived of it: but Rebellion is a proper merit of that privation. Yet the nature of the work, which is the condition, is answerable to the Age and parts of the son. Suppose the same father hath other sons, that be some of them little children, that can but go, and some sick in bed of hurts that they have catched by their own folly, by falls, or burns, or cut • ing them, or the like: or suppose it possible that the forementioned son should fall back into such an infant condition upon his disobedience? Here now the Father hath Commands, Promises of Reward, with conditions and threatenings as well as to the other, but of a far different nature. For here the Father saith to the sick or wounded Child, If thou wilt take this medicine, though it be bett • r for thy own cure, I will love thee, and I will give thee this or that; and for prevention of more hurt, If you will not cut you, or fall, or burn you with the fire, or the like, I will do this or that for you. Our meriting at God's hands is no more properly called Merit, then this of the child by taking meat or medicine offered to cure its own sores, and by taking heed of fire, and what else may endanger hereafter: and in some respects it is yet less then this.
But I perceive I have stood very long upon this term merit (the rather because the Accuser fasteneth so much upon it) I will therefore dispatch what I have to say to the rest, with more brevity.
SECT. VII.
3. THe third term that I would have explained, is, Worthy or Worthiness, concerning which, my meaning may be gathered from what is said in the last. I only add these two Propositions 1. Being the phrase of the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, it is law 〈…〉 • o say 〈…〉 t Beli 〈…〉 d Obedient Christians are worthy of eternal life, and that we must believe and obey, that we may be accounted worthy, and that there is a certain Evangelical worthiness of God's Love, and so of the Reward, which consisteth in our sincere Faith and obedience. For this is plain Scripture.
2. But yet though Christ speak of such a worthiness, because the phrase is improper we should use it sparingly, and always either avoid it, or explain it, where there is danger either of hardening the erroneous, or of offending the weak, by the incautelous use of it.
4. The same I say of the term Reward; 1. It is lawful to use it, because Christ doth it so oft: and indeed some more necessity of using this, then either of the former. 2. But yet it must be used with Caution and Explication, for the foresaid reasons.
5. But there is no word that we have made more quarrelling about in this business, then the terms Righteous, Righteousness, and Justification, even when we were agreed about the matter. It is inconsistent with my intended brevity, now to mention the divers significations, and uses of these words: Only in brief I shall lay down my thoughts, as far as is requisite to our present purpose, in these Propositions.
Proposition 1. I do not in these disputes about the Righteousness of Believers, take the word for that particular virtue, which is usually said to be a Constant and Perpetual Will of giving every man his due: But sometime materially for the Observation of the Laws: And most usually Relatively for Non-reatus, not guiltiness, either as to the Reatus Culpae vel poenae, in a legal and judiciary sense.
Proposition 2. It is not only agreeable to Scripture, and so warrantable to call men Righteous, because of their own Faith, Repentance and sincere Obedience, but also so frequently done in Scripture, and on such weighty grounds, that this phrase is to be used ordinarily by Christians, and not disowned or avoided.
Proposition 3. Yet where-ever any men are called righteous, because of their own holiness and obedience, it still supposeth the pardon of all their sin in the blood of Christ, which is called ordinarily, imputed righteousness: and this as supereminent above the other, as to their Justification, as I have before expressed.
Proposition 4. It is the Scripture phrase, and therefore warrantable to say, that By our words we shall be Justified, and by your words me • shall be condemned. And that men shall be judged according to their works: (And to judge, is to justify or condemn) And that a man is justified by his works, and not by Faith only; Jam. 2. 24. I am not now speaking of the sense of these texts, but of the warrantableness of this langauage, as being used by the Holy-Ghost. None therefore is to be charged with error, for the mere use of the words, unless it be proved that he useth them in an ill sense.
Proposition 5. Yet, though it be Scripture phrase, it should be used with great Caution; and the very phrase of Justification by Works, should be avoided or explained, where it may be an occasion of drawing men to ascribe too much to their works, or of offense to the godly: and we should more frequently use Paul's phrase, (which is not contrary to this) and say, that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law. All things are not convenient, that in themselves are lawful.
Proposition 6. I had rather myself use this phrase, We shall be finally justified, if we believe and sincerely obey; which is all one as to say, Faith and sincere Obedience are Conditions of our final Justification: then this phrase, We are justified by works, and not by Faith only, for the foresaid reasons. And if I understand that the latter phrase. though it be the Holy-Ghosts, is offensive, I will avoid it: so be it I may have leave on necessary occasion to use these three phrases, which all our Divines, so far as I know, do allow.
1. That sincere Obedience is a Condition of our final absolution in Judgment▪ and of the Continuance of our Justification here: Or if the term Condition, and Continuing be offensive (though me thinks they should not) I would consent to disuse them both (except when by dispute we are driven to debate the Case, whether they may be used or no, or when I am urged to express what phrases I judge most proper.) Instead of Continuance of Justification, I would as willingly say, It is the Condition of not-losing our Justification; and instead of calling it a Condition, I am content to use the very words of • cripture, and say, If we confess our sins, he is Faithful and just to forgive; and if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you, but if ye forgive not, &c.
The second phrase that I would have liberty to use, is, Our faith and sincere Obedience do themselves make us Righteous, our sins being freely pardoned in the blood of Christ: All our Divines Confess an Inherent Righteousness. A Righteousness which will not so far make Righteous, is a most palpable contradiction; with me, its one thing to Justify Constitutive (which goes before all kind of sentential Justification) and to make Righteous: seeing therefore I have their good leave to say, that faith itself and obedience, do make or constitute us Righteous, I can forbear, if it displease them, to use the equipollent phrase, that faith itself and obedience do Justify.
The third phrase that I would have leave to use, is that of God, we shall all be judged According to our works, or, to what we have done in the body. If they can bear men's use of this phrase, they can bear all that I intend or desire: and I think it apter to express my thoughts by, then the other, we are Justified by works: for it is to the Justification at judgment that I have chief respect, when I speak of the interest of Obedience in our Justification.
Propos. 7. The word Justification is usually by many Divines taken only for God's first Remission of sin at our Conversation, and his then Accepting us as Righteous: And when we dispute with men that do and will understand the word Justify in no larger sense then so, we must needs grant them, that (according to that sense) we are not justified by any Positive works of external obedience; no, nor by any act (or habit) of faith itself, performed from the time of the first act till death, but by the very first instantaneous act only; so that in their sense of Justification, I grant them, as to the exclusion of man, much more then they desire.
Some other phrases there be that I had thought to have said something to, as being Justified for faith or obedience, or because of them, and by them, and of trusting to them, with other the like; but having done that which I account most necessary, I shall pass by these, for brevity▪ sake.
And thus I have given, for the satisfaction of all▪ offended, Censorious Brethren, a true Account of my judgment, how much I ascribe to man's works, both in sense and terms. I begun with the lateer, being about a Confession, where verbal differences have the least and last place: but had I been opening the doctrine of Justification, I would have begun with the former, (which I say, as fore-seeing some will carp at that) I have been so far from hiding any part of m • Judgment, which I may conceive distasteful to any, that I have said more for holiness and obedience, then ever I said before, and as much as I could possibly find at present ascribed to them in my mind. But I do again profess, that I hold not all this with that tenaciousness, nor full certainty, nor conceit of necessity, as I do the Articles of my Creed, or first general Confession: and that if I find any word here contrary to it, or the Scripture, I will revoke it. And I shall thankfully receive the instructions of any Brother that will manifest to me any error, in sense or word, which I am far from daring to imagine that I am free from. In the mean time, as I can unfeignedly say, that I can bear the differing Judgments of my Brethren in love and peace, so I could wish they could do by me; but if they cannot, there is no remedy: I bless my God that bear, mine Errors, when my dear Brethren cannot bear his Truth.
CHAP. IV.
Additions to the former Confession, on occasion of the sight of Mr. Caryls Epistle to Mr. Crandons Book; tendered to Mr. Caryl for his satisfaction, in the points wherein he declares himself offended.
WHen I had written this far, I received Mr. Crandons whole book (having before seen the Monster, sine Capite & Caudâ ) when I opened it, I found such a name written in its fore-head, as I had thought that dunghill deserved not to be blest with, viz▪ Mr. Joseph Caryl, with his Epistle perfixt. His name in whom I trust, and whose Truth is dearer to me, then the esteem of man, even Jesus Christ, is above all names: and none have names so honorable, as to disgrace his Truth and Wisdom, with the children of Wisdom, by setting those names in the balance against that Truth. As God's Truth and Grace is it that makes men's names to be honorable and precious with his people, so that if they do but stumble and fall upon that Truth, it will break their names in pleces; but if it fall upon them (while they strive against it) it will grind those names to powder. Which I speak not as censuring the name of this Reverend man▪ but as one reason of my security of the Cause of God, what names soever shall countenance its opposers. Yet I confess I more envy Mr. Crandons Errors the honor of this prefixed name, then of all his Arguguments; or then I envy this Reverend name, the honor of being prefixed to such a volume. I have received a Description from pious fame, of the soul of Mr. Caryl, so unlike to the soul of this Ranting Disputation, that I hereby do crave of our Christian posterity, that when we are all in our graves, and another world, they would not so wrong this excellent Man, as to conclude them to be of kin, because of this connection. If you say, He hath given us just occasion so to think; I desire you both to look upon his disowning the personal reflections, which are the beginning, middle, end, if not all; and also to consider, that the most peaceable dispositions are usually most tractable; and you know not what importunity might have done with yourselves: I mean not of such a Comet as Mr. Crandon, but of the higher and more illustrious Planets of our Orbe. Learned and pious men, must love and honor the pious and Learned: and therefore their Temptations have the greater advantage. Nor do I in the • east suspect that this godly man hath done anything against his Conscience, to please others; though perhaps he might be the more neglective of his own name, and might do that which of himself • he would have Judged inconvenient; as the sad Resentment of Theological wars, mentioned in the beginning, and the little check to his thoughts, in giving an explicit Testimony to the work, mentioned in the middle, may persuade us to conceive. Yet because his approbation of the doctrinal part of Mr. Crandons discourse, and that in the particulars mentioned, do signify that he is of his Judgment in these Doctrinals, and that he is offended at my doctrine in those points, I do unfeignedly profess to bear so much Reverence to the name of Mr. Caryl, that I take it for my duty to tender him satisfaction in the points wherein▪ I have given him offense. For though I have no expectation that he and I should ever be of one Judgment in this world, if he approve the Doctrinal points mainta 〈…〉 in Mr. • randons book, as knowing the strong conviction and persuasion of my own mind, concerning the unsoundness of some of them, and knowing that Mr. Caryl is confident on the contrary, before • e would commend their vindication as worthy of public view; yet lest I be misunderstood, and our differences may seem to be wi • er then they are, and especially because I do easily confess that some indigested, unexplained, and incautelous words of mine in that offensive Book, might give him and others cause of offense, and so the fault is partly mine, I am obliged to do my part, for the Removall of the offense. His words which call me to it, are these, It is a duty to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and yet the Doctrinal points therein maintained and vindicated, The present freedom of Believers from the curse of the Law, and their free Justification by faith without works, yea without faith as it is a work, through the alone satisfaction of Jesus Christ, are of such moment, and so fundamental in Religion, for the comfort of poor souls, that I cannot but Judge any Essay tending to the clearing of them, much more this large and elaborate discourse, profitable for the Church of God, and worthy of the public view.
That which I shall do for the satisfaction of this Pious Man, is, 1. To Declare whether I do indeed deny free Justification by faith without works, yea without faith as it is a work, through the alone satisfaction of Jesus Christ. 2. To Declare how far I deny or maintain the present freedom of Believers, from the curse of the Law. And consequently, whether I deny the faith once given to the Saints, or anything Fundamental in Religion, for a Christians comfort: and whether Mr. Crandon may be said to have vindicated these Fundamentals from my opposition. 3. I shall presume to give a few Reasons (though contrary to my former intention) which persuade me to think that Mr. Crandon hath not vindicated these Fundamentals, and that his discourse is not profitable to the Church of God, nor worthy the public view, either because it is large and elaborate, or because it tendeth to the clearing of the truth.
1. For the first of these, I have spoke my thoughts already, as my mind did then dictate to my Pen: and because I am so far from dissembling my Religion, as Mr. Cr. most confidently affirmeth me to do, that it very much grieveth me, (next the obscurity of my own understanding, and my defectiveness in embracing and improving those truths which I know) that I cannot tell how to make men fully understand my mind, and see the best and worst of my thoughts, in matters of Religion; I shall add a few more words, though no more in sense, as being for matter a Repetition of what is said.
Conclus. 1. I have ever held, and do hold, that at our first believing, we are Actually and Absolutely justified from all our sins, without exceptions, by faith in Christ, without the works of the Law, or without works in Paul's sense.
Conclus. 2. I have ever held that faith itself, as a work, in Paul's sense, hath no hand in our Justification, nor salvation; much less is it the cause thereof, quâ opus, as such a work.
Conclus. 3. I have ever held to this moment, that even those positive works of external obedience to Christ, which all that live after their first believing must perform, or perish, are not so much as conditions of our first Actual Justification, no nor existent till after it.
Conclus. 4. I have ever understood most of our Divines, when they speak of Justification by faith alone, to mean by Justification, God's first putting us into a justified and pardoned estate, upon our first believing. And if so, either I give no more to works to our Justification then they, or else I know not my own thoughts. I say therefore as they use to do, Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non precedunt Justificandum, and therefore they cannot Justify. Which Reason can hold of Justification in no other sense then this.
Conclus. 5. I ever thought that it is no Merit or Dignity, or value of man's works, or his faith either, which is the least Cause of his Justification in the last Judgment, or the continuance of his Justification here; much less of his first being justified.
Conclus. 6. I do not believe that man is any way, by any act of faith or obedience, any true cause of God's pardoning or justifying him: principal or instrumental.
Conclus. 7. I never went about to give works or duty, any part of that interest in our Justification, which our Divines do frequently give to faith; viz. to be the instrument of our Justification. For indeed I deny so high an honor to both.
Conclus. 8. Much less dare I admit the least thought into my soul, of giving the least part of Christ's honor or office, either to faith or works, so far as I am able to discern it; nor did I ever feel a desire in my soul so to do: for though I know I have in me the seed of all sin; yet it is no wonder if this sin be so far suppressed, as not to act sensibly, when both Christ's interest and mine own do lie so full against it. And if any Brother will manifest that I have given the least of Christ's honor or office to man's works or faith, in word or writing, I protest myself unfeignedly willing to receive his information, and that upon such receipt, I will publicly recant such words, and desire such writings may be committed to the flames.
Conclus. 9. Nay, one main reason which constraineth me to differ from my Brethren, and to deny that faith is an instrument of Justification, is, because I dare not give so much of Christ's honor to man, or any act of man's, as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself.
Conclus. 10. I conceive therefore that the difference between me and them, is not that I give anymore indeed to works then they, but that they give more to faith then I, and consequently to man: and that if I be guilty of levelling or equalling faith, and obedience too much, as some think; it is not by bringing up works too high (to be instruments of Justification as they make faith) but in taking down faith too much, by denying it to be the justifying instrument; and consequently in too much abasing all acts of man, which yet I do not see that I am guilty of.
Conclus. 11. I ever held that it is only faith, and not works, that is the receiving of Christ, and that faith being the only receiving Grace, (wherein no mere moral duty or Grace doth participate of its honor or nature) it was therefore by God p • culiarly destinated, or appointed to the office of justifying, as fittest to the glorifying of Free-Grace, and of God-Redeemer therein.
Conclus. 12. This faith I difference from Evangelical obedience, as I difference the consent to a man's Sovereignty, from my obeying him as my Sovereign; or the consent to Marriage Relation, from the conjugal fidelity and obedience of a wife to her husband: or the taking a man to be my Captain, from obeying him, or fighting under him: or the taking a man to be my Physician, from obeying his counsel, and taking his Medicines: and Repentance I take to be to our faith in Christ, as the breaking off from other Suitors and Lovers, and turning the mind to this one, is to Marriage: (though some other differences may be imagined, the word being taken variously.) So that I do no more (as I am accused) comprize all obedience in faith, because I Comprize a Love to the Redeemer, and a Consent to be governed by him, then I comprize all Conjugal Obedience and fidelity of a woman to her husband in the Marriage-Covenant or Consent, because I comprize in it Love to the man, and a Covenant of fidelity and obedience for the future. As I have said, Faith with me, is the Taking of whole Christ, (that is in all those Respects which are Essential to him as he is Redeemer and Savior) by all those acts of the soul, which are of absolute necessity to the true Reception of such an object: that is, by Assent, Consent, Love to him, Affiance, which also have such further respective diversifications, as I fullier before expressed.
Con. 13. I am very Confident that when Paul includes faith, and excludes works, he never meant by Faith any one single individual act, or any one only sort of act in the strictest Physical sense, calling all the rest Works. And if any man will but tell me what one physical act he will tie Justification to, I will prove to him that he excludeth that faith which God includeth. Our own Divines ordinarily say, that Justifying faith hath three acts, Notitia, Assensus & Fiducia, And Velle, Eligere, Consentire, Acceptare, is the principal of all, which is not the same with any one of these. And fiducia is more then one itself And that Assent which is but one in Genere, is many in particulars, according to the many truths to be believed to the very essence of Justifying Faith. The Scripture expressly describeth it, as consisting in Assent, Receiving, Affiance, &c.
Con. 14. I am of opinion, that those that take Justifying faith only for one Act in sensu Physico, do utterly lose and confound themselves in the doctrine of Justification, making it impossible for any man on earth to know which is the justifying faith: Not only because they have no word of God to direct them, by confining it to any one act, (without which they can donothing), but also because the soul is so curious a piece in its essence & operations, & so much unacquainted with itself, and so defective in reflex Knowledge, that no man can so discern its acts, as perfectly to distinguish them and to say when it is but one act, and when it grows to be two or three in mere physical sense. If you diversify them by the Objects (which is the known way) yet are there in every object, at least, in the object of Justifying faith, such diversity of parts essential, integral, and of Accidents, and respects, and necessary modifications, that no man on earth can determine just how these do individuate or physically specify our acts? As if apprehension of Christ be Justifying faith, as they use to say, passing by the Ambiguity and Comprehensiveness of the term Apprehension, no man can tell us, whether to apprehend Christ, as God and as man, and as God and man in one person, and as the second person in Trinity, and as one that hath died, and by death satisfied, and as one that is Risen, ascended, intercedeth, hath power to forgive sins, and as one that by pardoning must save us from Hell, and give us Heaven, &c. I say no man can tell just how many physical acts go to this: much less can any prove that all this may be done by one physical act: or can any cull out any one, and say, that is the Justifying object and act, and reject all the rest, as not essentially requisite as well as that.
Con. 15. I think they that should attempt such a business, would horribly abuse the Holy Ghost, and would themselves forget what element they are in, speaking as meri Physici, when they are treating of moral subjects, both Ethical and Political: and they would be guilty of a base reduction of God's holy notions and Law-terms, to the most vain Philosophy (which Mr. Crandon seems to be so zealous against), as well as of confounding Physicks with Ethics and Politicks.
Con. 16. Themselves use to confess, that the Promise, and Christ himself, and the Righteousness of Christ, (if not also Justification thereby) are the objects of Justifying faith: To which I may truly add, the Veracity of God Revealing, the formal object of Assent, and the Bounty or Good will of God in Giving, as the object (as it were formal) of Acceptance, beside the several parts of the material objects, and invisible Glory the End, expressed fully in Heb. 11. to be as essential as any of the rest. And sure our old Physicks must be renounced before we can assert that but the two or three first objects alone (the Promise, Christ, and his Righteousness) can all be apprehended with any one single physical act, there being divers formal objective reasons. Con. 17. I am bold upon the confidence of the premises to conclude, that in my Judgment, those Divines that will single out any one Physical act of the soul, and call that alone by the name of faith, and teach the People that by this only they are Justified, and that whoever looks for Justification by any other Act, but that one, is a Papist, a Jew, an enemy to Christ's Righteousness, destroyeth the Gospel and the Foundation of Christian Comfort, I say, such men, in my opinion, do utterly ruin the Comforts, and torture and wrack the souls of poor Christians, whom they pretend to support, yea they drive them to unavoidable desperation, if their doctrine be practiced: For it is not possible for any one of these poor Christians to find out which is the single Physical act of faith; and then not finding which is it, they must either look for Justification by other acts with it, and so (say their Teachers) forsake Christ and the Gospel, or else venture upon someone act, which yet they are not sure to be but one. Here's comfortable Gospel doctrine indeed! or if it were granted that philosophical brains can so punctually individuate or specify their acts, yet all the unlearned that cannot, must be damned, as being cast upon an unavoidable necessity of being Jews, Legalists, Papists, &c. For my part, as subtle and profound a Philosopher as Mr. Crandons uncharitableness hath feigned me to be (that he might rob me of the name of a Christian, by giving me in exchange the name of a subtle Philosopher) I profess, that neither my naturals or spirituals will serve me to cleave all these hairs, and if this were Christ's Law, which they feign, actum esset de me, I must needs perish: But I again profess, and that with seriousness, that before I will believe such doctrine which gives up souls to desperation, under pretence of their highest consolations, and which casteth scorn upon Christ and the Gospel under pretence of a zealous vindication of them, I will be yet more prodigal of my Reputation with such men▪ of what name and note soever; and I will sooner take them for such scholars as Festus took Paul for, then I will believe their doctrine, without better evidence then yet I can see.
Con. 18. I am as confident, that by confining Justifying faith to any one single Physical act, men will intolerably abase the nature of faith, making it either no human, i. e. moral act, or so imperfect a one, as God in Scripture doth abhor. If it be only an act of the Intellect, it will not be strictly moral or human: the Intellect is but the entrance into the soul, and its acts, the beginnings of human acts: If it be only in the will, it will be blind: If both, without affection, it is lifeless, and contrary to that which Scripture describeth, which is Affiance in God, &c. Nor will it be the entire acting of the soul, if it be not the act (as I may call it) of the whole soul, that is, of both faculties and the affection suited to that object. Besides, that the soul acteth so harmoniously, that all the faculties will certainly concur.
Yet let none mis-undestand me, as if I charged our Orthodox Divines with this opinion, which I am now speaking against; but I am confessing mine own Judgment, against some particular disputers that have passionately insisted on this point. Sure I am, our late Reverend Assembly are far from it, in their Definitions of Faith.
Con. 19. I do firmly believe that he that Receives not Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ, that is, as God and man, as one that hath perfectly Obeyed, Dyed for us, Ransomed us, Rose again, is now in Glory, Lord of all, as our Savior from Guilt and power of sin, and so as Priest, Prophet and King, as one that will bring us to Glory if we believe; and so as a Benefactour, and as Good, (and therefore to be Received with Gratitude and Love) I say, he that doth not thus Receive Christ, is not a true Christian, nor hath any true Justifying faith, but shall be damned: and that Justifying faith containeth all this in it. And therefore I believe that they who teach men, that someone only of these acts is Justifying faith, and all the rest are works, which if we look for salvation or Justification by, we fall from Christ, do lead men the direct way to desperation and Damnation.
Con 20. Yet I think that the whole of this Faith is usually denominated from someone act, (or more, which we commonly comprize in one name) as most frequently from Assent, and frequently from Affiance (which is more then one act itself, and comprehendeth both Assent, and Hope, or Expectation) sometime from Willing or Receiving. But when ever Faith is spoken of as justifying or saving, the other acts are included under the name of one. Yet at other times in Scripture the word faith is taken in a narrower sense; as it is by James, and by Paul, when he distinguisheth it from Hope and Love: For otherwise, we are saved by Hope, and Faith is the substance of things Hoped for, &c.
Con. 21. I think that the Jews Conceit was, that God's Law delivered by Moses was so perfect and excellent, that the Doing of of the works therein prescribed, in a laborious task of Ceremonial observances, and in Costly sacrifices and offerings, did by the Dignity and value of the work, derived from the Dignity of the Law, procure of itself the pardon of all their sins, and their full Acceptance with God, without any sacrifice of a Mediator: and that this is it that Paul disputeth against. So that their principal intent was to extol and maintain the perfection and sufficiency of Moses Law, as wanting nothing necessary to Justification and felicity, not understanding how Christ was the end of it; and in Conjunction with this consequentially they trusted to the Merits of Legal works. Accordingly I think that Paul's scope is both to take down Moses Law (especially its necessity and conceited sufficiency), and the Dignity of Legal works (and consequently of any works.) I think therefore that by Works, Paul meaneth to exclude only Merits, or works which are conceited Meritorious, or which for the worth of the Deed done, should procure pardon and Acceptance with God, without a Mediators blood. And so Paul himself describes the works that he speaks against, Rom. 4. 4. That they are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt.
Con. 22. Our Divines against the Papists do commonly place the Controversy here, and say, that the Question is, whether we are Justified by Works, that is, by the Merit of Works? making them all one. So Dr. Fowns, Rivius, and it is the common voice. Vid. Melanct. Loc. Com. p. 427, 429. and Exam. p. 689. & 699 & Sotinium Thes. c. 14. §. 6. & 12 Joh. Crocius de Justific. Dis. 12. passim.
Con. 23. I do not think therefore, that under the name Works, Paul doth exclude the acts of faith before mentioned, the Love of Christ, or Thankfulness for Grace, or the Confession of our great unworthiness, and our extolling the Freeness of Grace, or our disclaiming Merits, or our owning the true God for our only God, &c. I say, these acts considered, not as falsely Conceited Meritorious, but as Means to Life, (and some of them to Justification at first) and Conditions without which God will not save us, were never excluded by Paul among works. Nay, though some of these do not exist till we are justified, yet did not Paul intend them as Works in his exclusion.
Con. 24. I presume to confess it my opinion, that those Reverend Brethren who say, Faith justifieth quà Instrumentum, as a true instrument, do most certainly make it to justify as an Action of man: and that in saying, that It justifieth as an Instrument, and it justifieth not as an Act, or by Action, they do speak most gross contradiction: seeing that Instrumentum est Causa efficiens, & Actio est efficientis Causalitas. I do therefore say, as well as Mr. Caryl, that Faith itself justifieth not as a Work: And I say more then is commonly said (from whence is the indignation) that it justifieth not as an Action of man neither, and so not as a true proper instrument of Justification.
Con. 25. Nay, I will yet say more (and have still said it) that the formal or nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification, commonly expressed by quatenus, is not any Ethical consideration or respect in Faith. This is in the midst between the two former. I before Concluded, that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken for Mercenary or Meritorious working, as a workman doth for his wages, as Paul means: 2. And that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken physically, for an act of man. And thirdly I now add, that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken for a Moral Virtue, Pleasing to God, because a Virtue: 4. Nay, nor qua hoc opus, as it is a work of singular worth or Aptitude to this office. But it is merely in its Civil or Law Relation (if I may so call it) that is, as it is freely and positively appointed by God to this Office; making it, as he is Donor, the Condition of his free gift; so that it is nothing in the nature of Faith, but the Will of the Donor as such, that in the tenor of his Gift hath given it this Office and Honor: which is merely extrinsical to the Nature, or Ethical worth of Faith.
Con. 26. I must therefore profess, that after long consideration, I know no one term that properly expresseth this nearest or formal interest of faith in Justification, but only the term Condition, as that word is usually taken for the Condition of a free gift. And when the Scripture telleth us, how faith justifieth, it is in such terms as these, If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe with thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, &c. and He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned: In all which, if the Conditional If, and the conditional form of the Promise express not a Condition, I despair of ever understanding it in this life, though it be the foundation and the sum of the Faith.
Conclus. 27. Yet though no Ethical worth or Aptitude in faith be the formal Reason of its interest in Justification, it is nevertheless its immediately-prerequisite Aptitude for this office and honor: And so far as we may give a reason of God's appointments and will, from anything without him, in the object, we may say, that therefore God made it the Condition of the Covenant, or of his gift of Christ and Justification, because it was the fittest moral Grace for this work. So that it was some Ethical or Moral excellency or worth in that grace, that caused God (as we may speak) to make it the condition, and so which is its Aptitude to the office, and the remote reason of its interest in Justification; though not the formal and nearest reason.
Conclus. 28. Yet even here, it was not the mere Moral excellency of this Grace absolutely, or in itself considered, as a good act; or as better in itself then the Rest: but it was a respective excellency or worth, viz. because it is the fittest to this special use and end; as being in its own nature, the believing a word of promise of unseen felicity, and the accepting of a free Gift, &c. and so fittest for God to design to this office, seeing its his high design in Redemption, to extol his love and Free-Grace; so that though in reference to mere sanctification, some other Grace might be as good as faith, yet none were so ad-Apt-ed for this design. And this I conceive is it which Divines call the instrumentality of faith.
Conclus. 29. If any say, that seeing faith hath a peculiar Aptitude to this office, therefore it must have a peculiar Interest; I answer, so it hath. For 1. It doth alone, without (Merits, or) any positive Gospel-works of obedience (as such at least) procure (as far as belongs to its office) our first full Justification. 2. The love of Christ received, Gratitude, &c. are but as modifications of faith, which is called the receiving itself. Though some of them be distinct Physical acts, yet all the rest Morally considered, are but as it were the modification of faith, I mean of that act, which is the acceptance of Christ, and life freely Given. 3. And for Justification at Judgment, and the non-amission of it here, faith hath still the principal interest. Repentance (as distinct from faith) and a return to holy obedience, is a Condition upon a remote reason, propter finem, but faith directly, propter medium Principale, which is Christ as our Ransom and Savior: Repentance is presupposed as a Condition naturally necessary, even as Faith in God alone in opposition to Atheism, Polutheism, and Idolatry, is presupposed as naturally necessary, when we are called to Faith in Christ as the Redeemer: and as the moral Law remains naturally necessary, for all the command of special Faith in Christ by the Gospel: But Faith in Christ is an elected condition, elevated to this office above its own nature, by a special Positive Institution and Promise, fitted to its object the Lord Jesus, who is the supernatural and highest means (as Redeemer), and it is revealed also in the Gospel, which is a supernatural Revelation. Besides as the natural necessity of the moral Law, of loving God, and repenting, and returning to him, are supposed, but these could neither be of any sufficiency or efficacy without Christ the supernatural way to the Father; nor could the said Love and Repentance have been wrought without Christ, if they had been sufficient: So though they are necessary, yet are they insufficient without Faith in Christ, as well as impossible (or beyond our power) so that Faith in Christ is that part of the Condition, which standing next the head, gives life unto the rest; and though as sine qua non, they are of equal necessity with Faith, yet as cum qua, or as to the sufficiency of the condition sine qua non, so Faith hath not only a precedency, but is as the master-pipe, which being next the cistern, conveyeth all the water into the more remote. This I add to what I said before against the charge of Levelling Faith and Repentance; Though the Charge of equalling Faith and Obedience, is easier avoided: For the Scripture doth expressly make Repentance some Condition, even of our first pardon and Justification: but so it doth not Actual Obedience to Christ.
Conclu. 30. If after all this, I am not so happy as to hit the true or full reason of the difference between Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, in the point of Conditionality, I solemnly profess it is not out of any desire to equal them: Nay, that I have stretched my brains to the utmost that I was able, to discover from God's Word the widest difference that I could possibly find, earnestly desiring (for to avoid offense, and to help me in expounding Paul's Exclusion of works) to have found the difference yet wider then I have done: And if I see not all, it is for want of Light, more then of Will or Diligence. And I shall heartily rejoice to see the difference more clearly stated by my brethren ; But I dare not in the mean time feign a difference in contradiction to Scripture, or addition to it; by saying that Repentance is no Condition, or that Faith is a proper Instrumental, efficient cause of Justifying or pardoning us: though I have professed not to contend with any that call it an Instrument of our Receiving Christ (if they will suffer me to use the phrases which I think more Scriptural and proper.)
Con. 31. I confess that there is such a thing as may be called Justification in foro Conscientiae: and that Faith may be called either an Instrument, or some efficient Cause of that Justification: (will not this satisfy Mr. Crandon? ) But I think that this is none of that which Scripture calls Justification by Faith, nor that it is the same Faith by which we are Justified, which is the immediate observable Instrument or Cause of that Justification by conscience (though that also be a cause of it): but it is that discerning of our interest in Christ and God's favor through him which is less properly called Faith, and more properly a discerning, and commonly Assurance or persuasion of God's Love.
Con. 32. I gladly confess also, that Christ made full satisfaction to God for our sin, and therein intended only and infallibly the actual salvation and Justification of his Elect: And that we may be said to be reconciled to God, and our sins done away, in a diminutive sense as to actual pardon and Reconciliation, even presently upon Christ's death and Resurrection, and so before we were born or believed. And if any will call this a Potential or Virtual Justification, though I will not imitate them, because I will keep close to Scripture-terms, yet if they explain their meanings, I will not contend for the word.
Con. 33. I confess also that God did eternally elect a certain number of determinate individual persons, to be infallibly justified and saved by Christ, in time: And that these were given to Christ that he should die for them, and for them only with a specialintention of actually justifying and saving them: and that all that are so given him shall come to him, and none shall take them out of his hands.
Con. 34. I believe that none can come to Christ except the Father draw them, and that he converteth them by an infallibly effectual grace, such as is an act of Omnipotency, and is never resisted, so far as to be overcome.
Con. 35. I am certain that the new nature of every Christian containeth a sense of his own great unworthiness, yea his desert of death for the sin of his best duties and such a sense of the Riches of God's Love and free Grace in Christ, and how much we are beholden to him; that every such soul must needs be prone to disclaim confidence in anything of their own, and to give all the glory to Christ, and free Grace: self-denial and ascribing to free Grace, being the most of our Christianity. So that if the zeal of this truth do make the inconsiderate to forget the nature and necessity of holiness, and its due place, and to forget how much the Righteous Lord loveth righteousness, and how Christ intended it in his death and Covenant, considering man's frailty, it is no wonder. And supposing that this is Mr. Crandons case, I heartily forgive him his volumn of calumnies, and railing Accusations: being parswaded he intended them much for Christ, though I think that there was too much of the interest of his private opinion, that made him, as it were, call for fire from heaven, and that he little knew what Spirit he was of. The Lord cause him to know it, and forgive him.
CHAP. V.
Further Additions occasioned by Mr. Caryls implied Accusation; About the freedom of Believers from the curse of the Law.
SECT. I.
THe next thing wherein I owe satisfaction, it seems, to Mr. Caryl, is, to show him how far I take Believers to be presently freed from the curse of the Law, and how far not: which I shall do in certain Conclusions; 1. Affirmative. 2. Negative.
Conclu. 1. The Curse of the Law, signifieth either, 1. The Commination of the Law. 2. The sentence of the Judge, according to the Law. 3. The Execution. The first doth oblige to punishment, when the sin is committed. The 2. convinceth the offender, determineth him guilty, adjudgeth him to death, and referreth or delivereth him over to Execution. The 3. inflicteth the punishment, and fulfilleth the former.
Conclu. 2. I have before declared, that I do confess that God hath by his eternal Decree, Immutably determined to free all his Elect (not yet Believers) from the curse of the Law.
Conclu. 3. I have also declared that I maintain that Christ purged away their sins, quoad meritum vel satisfactionem, that is, hath perfectly satisfied and merited their freedom.
Conclu. 4. I believe that all men are freed from the necessity of perishing (by suffering what they deserved,) as remediless. And that no man that ever heard the Gospel (at least) doth perish for want of a ransom, or expiatory sacrifice, or a Christ to die for him, but for want of Faith or a Will to accept a Christ freely offered him.
Conclu. 5. I believe that the Law of Works stands not now as it did to Adam, as the sole Law in force, but that the Promissory part of it is void, God being, as we may say, disobliged upon man's sin, and man made utterly uncapable of being the subject to whom such a Promise can stand in force: And therefore that it is fitter to say the Covenant of Works is null and void, because it is from the promissory part that the whole was called (if ever so called) a Covenant. (In this point I retract what I delivered in my Aphorisms.) Yea the Law itself hath received so many extrinsic alterations, as in its use, its Administrator, &c. that I will not contend with any about the name, whether it should be called the same or another, as long as we agree of the degree and matter of Change. But the great change is, that it hath now a Remedying Law conjunct, when before it stood alone, and its obligation had no remedy known. Then perfect obedience was the only Condition of Life; now its neither the sole, nor any condition at all. For where the Promise itself is ceased, there is no condition of it.
Conclu. 6. I believe that by the new Law of Grace, or the Promise, God hath delivered all men (in the Tenor of the Promise, though the promulgation reach not to all) from the guilt of sin, as to the destructive punishment, on condition they will accept of Christ and Life; and that no man is excepted out of this Promise (till they remedilessly reject it), but it is so general, that whoever will have Christ, may have him, (on his terms): Though none will have him, till God's special effectual Grace do make them willing. Yet whoever will, is called to drink of the water of Life.
Conclu. 7. I believe that this Promise of deliverance to All, is so free, that no price is required of any to procure it: It is but the Acceptance of a free Gift. And therefore no wonder if Christ be said to have taken away the sins of the world, or if God were said to pardon them, when God hath as far as belongeth to him (I say not, as much as belongs to him absolutely and in all respects, but) as the free Donor by Promise, per Legem Remediantem, delivered them; and the stop is only in their not consenting or accepting: and when among men consent is so naturally implied, that (though it be a true Condition, yet) it is seldom used to be expressed; but where consent only is the Condition of a Gift, it is used to be put in absolute terms.
Conclu. 8. I fully believe that as soon as ever any soul hath saving Faith, that is, Accepteth of Christ and life as offered, immediately all sin is pardoned actually, which before was pardoned but conditionally, and that their pardon, as to the present time, is not now Conditional, but as Absolute (the Condition being p • rformed): and I never thought otherwise. And this pardon • xtendeth to every sin, that is then in being, or ever was on • hat person, so that as to the sins Remitted, it is as an Absolute Remission.
Conclu. 9. In this Remission God doth Accept them as children into his favor, and discharge them from all guilt of eternal punishment, and of all Destructive punishment in this Life; yea, from all that is not retained for, and sanctified to a greater good then the evil comes to: having promised them that all shall work together for good to them that love God, Rom. 8. 28.
Conclu. 10. If the more illuminated, but censorious Brethren, who have blazed abroad such calumnies, and jealousies of me, for this one word, (in another Book) have the patience to bear it, I will repeat again to them the same Doctrine, (for I am far from recanting it) viz. It is my strong opinion, and I am confident of it, that no Justified-Sanctified person, shall ever lose his Justification or all his sanctification, and that God hath promised to cause them to persevere, and to perform the Conditions of pardon for the future, that they may infallibly be pardoned. And I am yet more strongly persuaded and confident that God hath promised all this concerning his Elect. Yet for this very Doctrine, and these terms, have zealous, Godly, tender consciencit Divines given out, that I wrote against perseverance, yea and have so muttered abroad that my writings are dangerous, that poor Christians are deterred from using them, yea they have engaged some in trouble of conscience not to read that Book, as containing very dangerous matter; with which dealing I am well content, if Christ approve of it, and conscience at last find comfort in it (if they look to find any comfort in their works, and such works) and if Satan gain no more by it then I lose, and if it be no loss to those that need them, (as I think in this bookish age it cannot be much.)
Conclu. 11. I believe that when ever the Justified do commit any sin, they have a present and effectual certain remedy at hand for their pardon, that is, the merit of Christ's blood, and his intercession, the Love of God, the promise of pardon, in which they have interest, and the Spirit to excite them to Faith and Repentance.
Conclu. 12. I believe that the Mosaical Law, so far as Mosaical, is ceased or abrogated, Christ being come, who is the end of that Law: (and this Law is it that Paul usually speaks of, in the question about deliverance from the Law.)
Conclu. 13. I believe that no true Christian ought to look on himself, as continuing under Guilt, or unpardoned sin, and bound over to condemnation, or as under the curse of the Law, as it is thus taken: but contrarily, to rejoice with greatest thankfulness, that God hath freed him by Christ, from this curse and condemnation: and to strive against all doubtings of his actual deliverance.
Conclu. 14. Much less may any Christian suppose himself to be still under the Law of works, as Adam was, and not under the the Covenant of Grace.
Conclu. 15. I believe that it is a heinous sin in any Minister to preach the Law of Works, as it stood to Adam, that is, to tell men either that they must perfectly obey, as the Condition of their salvation, or that they must merit Life, or that their misery for sin is Remediless, or yet to tell them of the misery, and not of the Remedy. This is to preach as Legalists, and enemies to Grace.
Conclu. 16. I believe that fears of Hell are not the great motive and predominant affection in the Kingdom of Grace: But thankfulness for Redemption, and Love to God Redeemer, should be the main motive, even to the wicked, to draw them from wickedness; and especially to the Saints, to keep them to Christ; and that Love is the predominant Ruling-affection, and Fear but to supply in some Cases where Love is defective, and will be while we are here.
Conclu. 17. I believe that Humiliation and Brokenness of heart, as it consisteth in humble, self-denial, and mean thoughts of ourselves, must be our constant frame; but as it consisteth in anguish of mind, God delighteth not in it, and useth it only to bring us further, and would not have us stick in it, but hasten to a Life of heavenly delights; and that the Life which hath most thanks, praise, glad obedience, and delight in God, is the life most pleasing to him, and not that which hath most doubt, fear and sorrows.
Conclu. 18. I believe that God doth usually give to true Believers, more or less, some sense of their freedom from the curse of the Law, and of his favor to them, and some peace of conscience and joy in the holy-Ghost.
Conclu. 19. I doubt not but a Christian may attain to a certainty of his salvation, much more, of his Sanctification and Justification, and that by ordinary means in this life, (though not without the Spirits supernatural help) and that Ministers should with all possible skill and diligence help on Believers to Assurance, Peace and Joy, and not detain them under doubtings and distress.
Conclu. 20. I fully believe that the departing souls of true Believers go to Christ, and the soul and body at the Resurrection shall be publicly justified by Christ in Judgment, and be perfectly freed from all the fruits of sin forever.
Thus I have told you my thoughts, how far Believers are freed from the curse of the Law. If Mr. Caryl think that I have yet left out any Fundamental, (which Mr. Cr. hath vindicated) yet it may be rather my forgetfulness, then my denying it: I have here set down what suddenly came to my memory, and if I have omitted any part of our freedom from the Curse, I shall be ready to assert it, when I am remembered of it. In the mean time, I hope the charity of my Brethren may reach so far without supererrogating, as to believe of me that I have no mind to be cursed anymore then they; nor have I a mind that any Believer should be cursed: and therefore that it is not any carnal interest or unwillingness of the truth that makes me differ, if I do differ, which is more then I know. And if God do but thus far, as I have mentioned, save me from the Curse of the Law, I hope I shall find that I mist none of my Fundamentals.
I come next to lay down the Affirmatives, How much I give yet to the Law, or how far I take Believers to be under it? And I will promise you, I will contradict nothing of the Negatives before delivered, so far as I can discern. Only I must entreat such Readers as Mr. Crandon, to think it possible that I can reconcile my own words when he cannot; and to know, that if by his blind consequences, fetched from what follows, he will affirm me to deny all that went before, and make the world believe that I do in terminis, or sense, disclaim and oppose the same things which I do in terminis and sense affirm and defend (as he most immodestly useth to do), whomsoever else he persuadeth to believe him, he must excuse me, if I credit him but as he deserves.
SECT. II.
COnclu. 1. §. 2. I do believe that God is our God, King and Governor, and that both on the Right of Creation and of Redemption; and that he governeth us by a Law, which is partly natural, that is revealed, by natural causes, or signs, and partly supernatural and Positive: And that this Law doth command us perfect obedience, and determine of each particular wherein it shall consist; and that nothing is sin, but what is against God's Law, and all that is a breach of it, is sin: and that this Law is Norma Actionum moralium, & Judicii: The Rule of our lives, and God's Judgment.
Conclu. 2. I believe that this Law doth constitute eternal death, to be the due punishment of every sin, to every sinner: and so obligeth, ad obedientiam, aut ad poenam; to obedience absolutely, and to punishment in case of disobedience.
Conclu. 3. I Believe that this Law is not abrogated by Christ, nor did he ever intend such a thing, but contrarily, to attain the ends of it, and satisfy and glorify the Justice of the Legislator, and so to stablish the Law.
Conclu. 4. I Believe that this general nature of the Law (to oblige to perfect obedience or to punishment) together with the natural particular precepts in it, are the very Law of nature, that is, resulting from the nature of man in this present station, as related to the sovereignty and the holy nature of God: so that to say that God himself could change these Laws, otherwise then by first changing the nature or natural station and condition of man, is but to say, he can do contradictories, and can take away a Relation, while the subject, Term, and Foundation do continue. Indeed should God turn man into a stone, or brute, the duty of Loving God would cease: or were it possile that man had a will which should not have Good for its object, then God should not be that object.
Conclus. 5. By what names or Titles this Law of God should be called, I resolve not to quarrel about with any, sobeit we be agreed concerning the matter. 1. Some will call it the Covenant of works: which word I used sometime in my Aphorisms, as retaining the name which the whole received from the promissory part. This title upon better consideration, I now think fitter to forbear and disclaim. My reason is (as is said) because the name is given from God's promise of life in that Law, and that promise is now ceased, and therefore it is not fit to denominate the Law A Covenant from that only part which is null. I did acknowledge in my Aphorisms that no man was capable of being justified by this Covenant or promise; but I saw not so clearly as now I do, that the Promise itself is null. (In which point the judicious Animadversions of a very reverend, learned Brother, have been no small help to me, though I am yet forced to dissent in part from his opinion.) Others stand stiff for what I first in terms asserted, viz. The continuation of the whole Covenant, Promise and all: But it is clear, that when man first broke Covenant, God was disobliged: and man was quite uncapable of having such a promise made to him: For when he was once a sinner it was not only, morally impossible that he should be no sinner (as it was impossible for him to keep the Law for the future) but it was naturally impossible, as being a mere contradiction. To feign a promise of God in force, that he will save men on condition they have no sin, when they have all sin already, is absurd. Yet I say not that God abrogated this promise▪ by making a better, but that man nulled it by his Covenant breaking, so making the matter impossible, and so it ceased, cessante materià, vel subjecti capacitate.
2. Some will yet call this Law in question, The Law of Works, though not the Covenant of works: Because the precept and Commination remain (only some Positives ceased which) may well denominate it a Law, and because it still commandeth perfect obedience for the future. I have nothing to say against this.
3. Some will call it The Law of nature; against which title neither have I anything to say.
4. Some call it The Moral Law: And here Divines speak very variously: many of them call the mere Decalogue, or preceptive part of the Law of nature, by the name of the Moral Law, without the sanction (either promise, or threatening) others call those precepts, together with the Commination, by the name of the Moral Law: Others call those precepts, with the threatening and the promise (supposed to be still in force) even in the same form as it was made to Adam, leaving out the positives, by the name of the Moral Law. The first reach not what we now have in question, the last exceed: the second sort I agree with, as to the thing, and mislike not the name.
4. Others think fitter to call this, The Law of Christ, as being part of his Law. This I reject not, it being but matter of words; seeing we are agreed, that now Christ, or God-Redeemer, is Lord of All, and that the Moral Law, or Law of nature, is now his Law: Provided always that we keep a clear distinction between, This Law of nature, (obliging to obedience or punishment) and the special Law of the Redeemer, called, The Law of Grace, or the Promise, which is Lex Remedians. But whereas the great question is, whether these be now two distinct Laws in force ( quoad speciem ) or only two parts of one Law? I conceive it but mere strife about words, and therefore will not contend in it: We are agreed that both are in force, and that both are now the Redeemers Laws; but one he found man under, and the other he made as Redeemer. We are agreed that they must not be looked on dividedly, but as linked together; and all are serviceable to the Mediators Government. So that the form of that Law which stood to Adam, was this, Obey me perfectly, and especially in not eating the Fruit of this Tree, and thou shalt live: but if thou sin, thou shalt Dye: that is, death shall be thy due. This stood thus alone without a Remedy. The Law that is now in force is this, Though thou have sinned, and art condemned, yet obey me perfectly for the future, in whatsoever I command thee, and if thou disobey in anything, for that also death shall be thy due: Yet for the sake of him that Redeemed thee, if thou wilt believe in him and Repent, thou shalt be pardoned and saved; but if thou wilt not, thou shalt be remedilessly damned. This is the sum and form of all God's Law now in force (supposing the particular parts of the matter of the precept): And while we confess the thing, the matter is small whether we call this one Law or two, or by what name or titles we call them: though we should keep as near the Scripture as we can. But they that observe not that it is not the Law made to Adam, but Moses Law, which Paul most frequently mentioneth, and calleth the Law of Works, will hardly understand the meaning of Paul's Epistles: But what the difference between these two Laws is, as I take it to be a question of so great difficulty, that I never could yet have full satisfaction in anything that I have seen upon it, so it is not now to be handled.
Conclu. 6. They that say, The Law of Works is in force to unbelievers, but abrogated to Believers, or to men as soon as they believe, do speak so gross absurdity or contradiction; that any man man discern it, that knows what the Abrogation of a Law is: The whole Law is repealed and thereby nulled, by Abrogation: And if it were so, it could bind none, much less the same man yesterday, and not today.
Conclu. 7. It is not by any exemption, exception, exposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or any preventive Dispensation (if such a thing may be) by which Believers are freed from the Laws obligation to punishment: But it is properly, by a pardon, granted Conditionally before, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction; and Actually Remitting, and thereby relaxing the Law, or Despensing with it after the guilt.
Conclu. 8. That this Law containing all the foresaid parts, is yet in force, is at large, and most expressly asserted by the Divines of our late Assembly, whose testimony for number and worth, I have reason to prefer before any single persons. In their Confession, cap. 19. they say, God gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This Law after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness, and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, &c. Sect. 5. The moral Law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, &c. Sect. 6. Although true Believers are not under the Law, as a Covenant of Works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a Rule, &c. It is likewise of use to the Regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show, what even their sini deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the Law.
And in the larger Catechism they say, What is the moral Law? Answ. The Moral Law is the Declaration of the Will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness, which he oweth to God and man, promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. The uses to all follow.
Only note what I said before, that the promissory part, I think is now ceased. And therefore I easily confess, that neither the believers nor unbelievers are under the Law as a Covenant of Works, if the word Covenant be meant of God's promise of Life. And as it is a condemning Law, I easily and joyfully acknowledge, that no man is under it as before Christ's satisfaction (in moral being) that is, as having no prepared nor offered remedy, but left as the Devils without a Redeemer: And I gladly grant, that it is most proper to say, that no Believer is under the condemnation of the Law, or under its condemning power: because, 1. All the sins of their life past, are actually remitted. 2. And they are in a sure way for the pardon of future sins, when they are committed: Seeing as the Moral Law doth bind them to punishment, so the Remedying-Law of Grace dissolveth that obligation, and pardoneth them when they have sinned, they having Faith and Repentance, which is the Condition. Nor doth any new sin destroy their state of Justification, nor make them cease to be God's reconciled children, seeing they are still united to Christ, and have his Spirit, and have Faith and Repentance.
Conclu. 9. The Law threateneth or curseth the Elect as well as others, while they are Infidels and unregenerate: For all Christ's satisfaction, and God's Dccree, and the certainty of their future pardon when they believe, and for all God hath foretold that he will call and pardon them.
Conclu. 10. God doth execute real punishments on many of the Elect, (yea all) before their conversion: notwithstanding Christ hath satisfied Justice for them.
Conclu. 11. No sins of Believers are actually pardoned before they are committed, or in being.
Conclu. 12. Though all true Believers are under Grace, and as to their state and all their former sins, are delivered Actually from the Condemnation, or Obligation of the Law, being truly forgiven, and so liable to none of its threatenings, yet when new sins are by these believers committed, this moral Law is so far in force against them, as to make them guilty of Death, till the Promise come in and remove that guilt by a fresh pardon: It makes death their due, though God by his Gospel do presently Remit it.
I cannot well conceive what should make men accuse me for putting Believers under the curse of the Law, unless it be this Conclusion (and that about punishment, which I shall come to anon). And therefore because it is likely that this is it which Mr. Caryl is offended at, I shall endeavor to satisfy him, by giving my reasons.
Conclu. 13. My first is the plain and frequent expressions of Scripture, mentioning both the guilt, punishment and pardon of Believers, which I have sufficiently elsewhere produced.
Conclu. 14. My second proof is from the very nature of the Gospelpromise, and the Saints necessity of daily pardon. Where there is no obligation to punishment, there is no pardon: For pardon is but the dissolving of the obligation to punishment, that is, of guilt: no man can possibly be forgiven that is not first guilty of sin to punishment: Remissio, est Debiti Remissio, & obligationis dissolutio: It must be therefore poena debita, that must be remitted: As it is evil it is due to the sinner, as it is a means to the end of Government, so the advantage of it is due to the Commonwealth, that is, to the Church, and so to God. Now for any man to deny his necessity of pardon, when Christ bids us daily pray, Forgive us our trespasses, and when Scripture so often and expressly mentioneth our pardon after believing, and directeth to means for that end, ( If you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive, &c. ) is to deny a plain truth, and I doubt, to disclaim a duty which is of necessity to salvation, that is, believing, for pardon, or flying to Christ for pardon by Faith in Prayer and Confession. I conclude therefore that it is of certain truth, that the Law is still in force against Believers, so far as to make them need a pardon from Christ by the Gospel, for every sin they commit: And this is all that ever I asserted, which is by some men accounted such accursed and dangerous Doctrine, against Christ and free-Grace; when I soberly profess to the world, that I would (if the Lord should strengthen me, according to my present purpose) rather suffer death then renounce this Truth, and deny my daily need of pardon by Christ; and I should think to be as good a Martyr (as to my cause) as any that suffered about Transubstantiation, and such like things, from the bloody Papists; whose cause, though clearly good, was yet scarce of such high concernment as this. And I confess, that as wicked and damnable a wretch as Mr. Crandon makes me, I would not for all the Treasures on earth, be in that man's case at death and Judgment, who believes that all his sins were so fully pardoned at Christ's death, that he hath no need of pardon since, or at least, that all future sins are so pardoned at his first believing, that he hath no need to fly to Christ for daily pardon, nor to pray for it, nor be beholden to God for it, but only for the feeling of it in conscience, supposing that he practically hold this error.
Conclu. 15. My third proof shall be from the necessity of Christ's death and satisfaction, for all our sins committed after our believing: Christ's satisfaction was by suffering the punishment due to us for our sins, or only instead of it: therefore punishment was considered as such, as would be due to us for them: therefore when we commit them, punishment is due, till God remit it, for the sake of that satisfaction. And if it be due, it must be due by some Law: and it could not be by an abrogated Law, which we were not at all under, and was not in force to us, when we committed them: for Lex mortua non agit; no man is made guilty by a Law which is no Law. Therefore it was by a Law which was in force against us, so far as to make us guilty of damnation, till God forgive us. Call this, the Law of Works, or of nature, or the Moral Law, or what you please; surely such a Law there is, or else Christ could not bear the punishment of any one sin, due to us, except only our sin in Adam. I presUme to tender these Reasons of my Dissent, for Mr. Caryls satisfaction, if (as its likely) this be the point that offendeth him. And I desire the compassionate Reader to condole the misery of human frailty, and what a necessity of condemning one another, we seem to be cast upon, through the darkness of our understandings! When I am published a Subverter of Fundamentals (no lower charge) on one side: and when I am constrained myself to be as confident, that I should subvert the Foundation itself, if I should think otherwise; and that I must deny that Christ died for the sins of the present world, or ever suffered any punishment that was their due.
Conclu. 16. To these let me add the universal consent of the Church of Christ, till of late; I think I need not tell any man, that ever was conversant in the Fathers in any considerable measure, how unanimously they agree in this, without any question made of it, that Believers themselves fall under guilt upon renewed sins, and have need of fresh pardon; yea they thought that many actions must be performed which were sine quibus non, to actual pardon: Were it not past all doubt, I could and would quickly give you testimony enough of this: that decantate speech of Austin's may suffice for all, so commonly approved by Protestant Divines, Non Remittitur peccatum, nisi Restituatur ablatum, without Restitution, there is no Remission.
Conclu. 17. Nor have the Reformed Churches forsaken the Antient Churches of Christ in this Doctrine, as is evident in all their Confessions past doubt. I will cite the words of that most learned and famous Synod of Dort, consisting of the Delegates of so many Churches, Artic. 5. §. 5. Talibus autem enormibus peccatis Deum valde offendunt, Reatum mortis incurrunt, Spiritum S. contristant, fidei exercitium interrumpunt, conscientiam gravissime, vulnerant, sensum gratiae ad tempus nonnunquam amittunt: donec per seram Resipiscentiam in viam revertentibus paternus Dei vultus rursum affulgeat.
Conclu. 18. The Reverend Divines of this Nation, have gone commonly the same way, as is undeniably evident in their Practical Tractates. Instead of troubling you with many particulars, I will give you many in one, viz. in the Confession and Catechism of our late Reverend Assembly: Confes. Ch. 6. §. 6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous Law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and Curse of the Law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal. Here is as much, if not more, then ever I said: If any object, that they only say, It is the nature of sin to do thus, if Christ did prevent it? I answer, No such matter: They say not, It would do thus, but It doth thus; and that Christ came only to prevent our guilt and obligation to punishment, and consequently to prevent our need of pardon for any sin after Regeneration, and not to give us pardon when we need it, is, as I have shown, a Doctrine unfit for Christian tongues or ears; Sin doth (first) in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the Law, &c. say the Assembly; and then, in order of nature, after (whatever it be in time) the Promise in the blood of Christ, dissolveth this Obligation, and Remitteth this guilt and curse.
So in the larger Catechism, Every sin, even the least, being against the Sovereignty, Goodness, and Holyness of God, and against his righteous Law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come, and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ. And that we may escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us f • r sin, he requireth of us Repentance, &c. There must be then a guilt or obligation by or to the curse, for every sin in order of nature before it is remitted, by the Application of Christ's blood. This is as much as ever I said, this way.
Conclu. 19. I am very confident that the very new nature of a Regenerate man, as consisting in his humility, self-denial, Repentance, Hatred of sin, and sense of the need of Christ, and the Grace of God in pardoning, doth contain in it somewhat that is really opposite to the contrary opinion, and that if a true Christian should say, I am not guilty: or I deserve not the wrath and curse of God for my sin: or no punishment is due to me: there is something within him that would rise against him, and draw back with abhorrence from consenting hereto. And if he should be drawn by seduction and faction, to hold such opinions speculatively, yet true Grace will not suffer him to hold them practically and prevalently: For so to hold them, I think, is inconsistent with true Grace.
Conclu. 20. I do not know that ever I heard any that were accounted Orthodox, pray to God and confess their sins, but they would confess that they deserved the wrath and curse of God: And he that will deny this, shall never be my mouth to God in prayer, if I can help it. As nature teacheth the poor Infant to cry in the feeling of its hurts or hunger: So truly doth the new nature teach every Christian to cry to God for pardon, and to confess that it deserveth his wrath and curse for sin. If the Antinomians say, that hereby I censure them as Grace-less, and in a damnable state; I Answ. 1. Let them see to it, that it be not so. 2. I hope many of them hold not those errors practically and predominantly, but speculatively, which the contrary opinion lies, though clouded and unobserved, yet most practical in their secret minds. Were it not for this hope, I confess, I would shake off all communion with this sort of men, and look on their case as deplorate. Yet they would make great out-cries against me, if I should allow a Papist or Socinian so charitable thoughts, as if it were possible for them to hold their more desperate errors but speculatively.
Conclu. 21. They that deny that every sin of the Regenerate deserveth God's wrath and curse, must affirm that Christ hath destroyed the very Law of nature. And they that hold that the Law of nature is not destroyed, must needs hold that we deserve God's wrath and curse for sin. For this is most legibly written in that Law. If any say, We do deserve it, but yet we are not guilty, or obliged to punishment, I Answ. That is a contradiction, if by guilt and obligation, you mean, the first dueness of the punishment, before Remission come in and destroy the guilt. For the Desert of punishment, is but what is due by the Law of nature. If they say, we only deserve what Christ hath suffered, and not that we should suffer ourselves. Now he hath already suffered: I Answ. The misunderstanding of the nature of Christ's satisfaction is the Root of all these mischievous errors. We first deserve it to ourselves, before it can be considered as due to Christ, because due to us: and Christ suffered what would be due to us, upon foresight that it would be due to us: and therefore he did not die to prevent that due, but to remove it. Nor did he take us from under God's Government by his death: and therefore we are Subjects, and under the Moral Law, which doth still bind us to obey or suffer, till Christ pardon. Remission is not the immediate effect of Christ's death, nor comes from his blood as shed only: but as Applied after it is considered as shed. I do not use to find Practical Divines in their Writings or Sermons, persuade Christians only that they deserved that Christ should suffer, or teach only such Confessions to God; But also that themselves have deserved to themselves the Wrath of God, and Curse of his Law: And I do not use to hear Practical Christians in their prayers, only confessing, Lord, we have deserved the sufferings of Christ; but also, Lord, we deserve thy wrath and curse for our sins, our daily sins. Such observations make me desirous, to leave it even in Capital letters to posterity, that PRACTICE IS THE EXCELLENT HELP TO BE TRULY ORTHODOX: THE PRACTICAL EXPERIMENTAL PREACHERS AND PEOPLE, DO HOLD FAST THOSE TRUTHS TO SALVATION WHICH OPINIONATISTS AND MEER DISPUTERS ARE EITHER EASILY DRAWN FROM, OR HOLD BUT SPECULATIVELY AND DETAIN IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS TO THEIR OWN PERDITION. Which makes me persuade young Students still (though I now apprehend it more sensibly then ever) that it is not a loss of time, as some would persuade them, to read much our Practical Divines, but that in such they shall find the truth more soundly, and soberly delivered, then in most Disputers that pretend to be more exact. And especially in the Antinomian points and all others that are against Christian experience, Hooker, Bolton, Rogers, Hildersham, Fenner, and such like, are the best Confuters of them, that seem not directly to meddle with the men.
A Practical experienced Defender of the Truth, is highly to be valued and honored by the Church: An unsanctified man, that is Orthodox and of able parts, may be useful to the Church: But if such be possessed with a zeal for their opinions, which they call the Orthodox Doctrine, they usually prove the most unhappy misleaders, especially if it be about those Truths that experience must do much in discovering. And the Godly and learned themselves DO LOSE THAT TRUTH TOO OFTEN IN DISPUTATIONS, WHICH BEFORE THEY HELD IN SOBER PRACTICE. It being next to impossibility for men that are not of extraordinary sobriety, to forbear running into extremes in the heat of opposition. I speak not this to dissuade men from studying to know the truth, or from defending it: But Controversy is not always the best Teacher of it. And to manage Controversy, it is but here and there a quick-sighted man that is fit for it: (O how rare are they!) Nor must they meddle with it but upon urgent Cause. I speak this in the consciousness of my own unfitness, however I am drawn to it by others. But I digress.
Conclu. 22. I do believe that Jesus Christ hath a special Law of Grace, which though it have the promise of life for its most eminent part, yet also containeth a peremptory threatening of Remediless destruction to men, if they will not Repent and Believe: And though I know that no Believer is so under this Threatning, as to be guilty by it, and obliged to damnation, yet is he so under it, as every subject is under the Penal Laws, who do not incur the penalty. The threatening of this Law, speaks to Believers as well as to others. God doth not only say to Infidels, if you believe not you shall perish; but also to Believers, If any man shall draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. And if ye forsake him, he also will forsake you.
C • nclu. 23. I do fully believe, that when a true Believer is actually Justified, from all his sins past, yet that all the continuance or non-amission of that Justified state, and also the pardon of all following sins and also his final Absolution in Judgment, are all still Conditional▪ Though I believe that they are certainly and infallibly future, and the event foretold in Scripture, and God, as it were, engaged to accomplish it, and that God hath actually and absolutely Decreed it, (I mean, there is no Condition of the act of his Decree, and also that he hath Decreed immutably the infallible futurition of the event): and a sober man would think that this were enough to free me, from their charge of Arminianism: Yet still I am certain, the Promise doth give us personally our Right to these benefits on condition. The same God that saw it meet to Decree the event absolutely, did also see it meet to accomplish that Decree, by making a conditional Grant or Promise of the blessing, and to enable his elect to perform the Condition, that so he might lead men to heaven under his Government by a Law, and the force of its motives, and not as bruits, nor as masterless, and Lawless. And they that deny this, show themselves too brutish or lawless to be Divines; and know not what the Law of the King of Saints is, and therefore are unfit to preach and expound it.
Yea, though a Believer attain to never so great certainty that he shall eventually persevere and be saved, and absolved at last, yet is it nevertheless conditionally given in the Promise; and his assurance is not because there is no Condition, but because he is assured he shall perform the Condition; (which assurance he hath from another Promise, and not from this.)
The text before mentioned proveth this, Heb. 10. 38. If any man draw back, &c. Col. 1. 21, 22, 23. And you that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight. If ye continue in the Faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel. 2 Tim. 2. 12. If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him; If we deny him, he also will deny us; Rev. 2. 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of Life, &c. verse. 11. 17. 26. and 3. 5. 12. 21. Joh. 15. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Now ye are clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you▪ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me, &c. For without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my Disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Fathers Commandments and abide in his love. Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. 14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our Confidence steadfast unto the end. Heb. 10. 23, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36. Let us hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering▪ for he is faithful that promised. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment, &c. This the Apostle speaks to them that took joyfully the spoiling of their goods▪ knowing in themselves that they had in heaven a better and more enduring substance; and that had received confidence, and of whom he expresseth his own confidence of them. Yet he saith further, We know him that hat • said Vengeance belongeth to me, I will recompense, saith the Lor •• and again, The Lord shall Judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, &c. Cast not away therefore your Confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of Patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the Promise. 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Mark. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Mat. 6. 12, 14 and 18. 35. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not everyone his brother their trespasses. Rom 8. 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the Deeds of the body, ye shall live. A multitude of such texts might quickly be produced: But the general tenor of the Promise puts all out of doubt, seeing it is made but to Believers and Penitent ones, or to men if they will believe and repent; therefore should they cease to believe and repent, the Promise would cease to justify them, and give them right to Christ and Life. And to put such a supposition by way of dispute is far from being so absurd as Mr. Crandon makes it, when God himself doth put it so oft in his Word, and a Christian must put it to his own heart, to prevent his Apostasy, What a heinous sin were it! and what a fearful case were I in, if I should Apostatize!
That I do not leave a Christian unjustified (for all this) till death, as Mr. Crandon frequently chargeth me to do, I have shown before, and may do further anon. We are not only Conditionally, but Actually Justified when we believe: But it follows not that we are jufiified from all the sin that is yet uncommitted, any otherwise then Conditionally.
Conclu. 24. I do believe that God Judged Adam, and mankind in him, for the first sin, Gen. 3. for all the promise of the Redeemer; and that he Executed, at least, part of the sentence there passed (or rather All, that All being but part of what was deserved.) And it is my opinion that the evils there mentioned, which still lie on Believers, are fruits of that first sin, and of the threatening (or Curse, if you will so call that small part of the Threat) of that Law, which Jesus Christ hath undertaken to remove, but not at once, but by degrees, so that the last shall not be removed till the Resurrection, this Life being the time which Christ as Physician hath taken for the performing of the Cure, that he may then present us spotless and perfectly sound to his Father. And that he did not all this cure on the cross.
Conclu. 25. Certain I am that the sanctified themelves are under Punishment, and that Punishment is the effect of the threatening of some Law, whichsoever it be, or whatever you will call it, and that threat is it in one sense, and the execution in another, that is commonly called the Curse of that Law. But if any will make it a contest, whether it be the Law of works, or of Nature, or the moral Law (which are all one to me) or the Law of Grace, whose Threatning it is that is executed on Believers, I will not contend with him, it being but about notions and words. But I choose to say, that it is partly and originally from the Law of works made to Adam, and the sentence following the breach: partly also from the Threat of the Moral or Natural Law, as it is now in the hands of Christ, and partly also by Consequence (though not as to the inflicting, yet as the very non-liberation in such a degree and season, is a punishment) it may be said to be from the Commination of the Law of Grace.
Conclu. 26. It is likely that it is this opinion of mine that may be Mr. Caryls further reason of offense, from whence he supposeth me to leave Believers under that curse of the Law; viz. because I suppose them Punished in some sort, and some Threatning executed in some part upon them. To remove this offense therefore, I shall give some reason of my words. And first, If the Consent of Divines be any satisfaction, I could quickly produce many Protestants that say as much as I. See excellently and fully Chemnitz Exam. Council. Trident. part. 2. de satisfact. page ( mihi) 370, 371. M • lancthon Loc. Commun. page ( mihi ) 122. showing what evils the Curse includeth, adds Nec quisquam est hominum, qui non aliquem insignem & dirum morsum Diaboli sentiat, unde discenda est haec sententia, serpens insidiab • tur Calcaneo ejus. Et pag. 297. fully, sciamus omnes tristes Eventus humanos vere esse Poenas, tum primi lapsus, tum aliorum peccatorum: sicut Psal. 39. propter iniquitatem Corripis hominem, and so he goes on to prove that even for Fear of Punishment we may do Good, against some that denied this, and he proves that the Godlies afflictions are punishment▪ for sin, and persuades them to acknowledge the wrath of God in their Calamities; page 298.
Pareus on Genes. is very plain and exact, in Cap. 2. 17. page ( mihi) 359, 360, 361, &c. 371. In the former he fully proves against Socinus, that Death is to us all a Punishment of sin, and but by Accident a passage to felicity▪ (the words are too many to cite) In the latter place he saith thus, Christus nos liber • v • t ab omni poena finaliter, hoc est ita ut tandem ab omnibus peccati effectis liberi simus: quando nimirum Deus absterget omnem lachrymam ab oculis nostris: tametsi donec id fiat, aliquid subinde de illis effectis adhuc in nobis sentiamus. Sic morbi, Calamitates, fames, pestis, & infinita incommoda sanctissimos adhuc infestant; quae effecta & poenas peccati per se esse etiam Impudentissimi Haeretici negare non possunt. Et ratio hujus est, quia Christus sic liberavit nos ab omni poena peccati, sicut ab ipso peccato: (mark this) A peccato autem sic nos liberavit non ut non sit in nobis sed ut non imputetur, & nobis non dominetur, ut Rom. 8. 1. & 6. 14. Manent in sanctis multae peccatorum reliquiae, quae etiam reliquias poenarum secum trahunt, in quibus, praeter alias afflictions externas est etiam mors Corporalis. Idem dicitur aliis verbis. Christus ab omni poena peccati nos liberavit quoad Meritum: hoc est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suo meritus est nobis Remissionem omnium peccatorum & poenarum: sed nondum quoad efficaciam: hoc est, nondum effecit in nobis omnia perfect, quae est meritus, quia perfectionem Glorificationi nostrae reservat. 1 Joh. 3. 2. Col. 3. 3. Sic nondum effecit, ne moriamur, quia mors est hostis ultime abolendus. (This is as much as I say) And page 372, 373. He proceeds, Omnem ergo mortem peccati poenam esse, et quotquot moriuntur, propter peccatum mori, hîc scriptum esse Contendimus. Et Ezek. 18. 4. 20. Quicunqve moriuntur, Peccant, se • ideo moriuntur, quia peccant: huic universali aequipollet, Anima quae peccaverit morietur Rom. 5. 12. Per peccatum mors introiit in mundum, & in omnes homines transiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Quid hoc est nisi peccatum esse scaturiginem vel januam mortis, et quidem universalis mortis. Ad quoscunque igitur mors transiit, per hanc januam transiit: hoc est, Quotquot moriuntur, ex hac Causa moriuntur, quia peccaverunt. Rom. 6. 23. stipendium peccati mors est, stipendium, h. e. meritum, debitum ex Ordine Iustitiae Divinae, quae unicui{que} tribuit quod suum est, &c. Ergo mortis quasi mater & causa per se est peccatum, Peccati proles et effectus per se, est mors. Pofito effectis proprio, necesse est causam propriam, esse, vel fuisse: Ergo quicunque moriuntur, peccati causa, moriuntur, & mors est Peccati Poena per se universaliter. Haec & similia scripturae dicta & argumenta Nullis Hereticorum argutiis eludi se patiuntur, &c.
Et page 383. Sunt quidem peccata fidelibus omnia condonata per Christum, nempe quoad poenas aeternas, non autem quoad Castigationes temporales, aut mortem corporalem. His enim manent abnoxii quoad peccatum penitus ex carne expurgabitur: nec sequitur, Aliqua peccati poena est reliqua in sanctis: ergo peccatum non est cis plene remissum: sicut non sequitur aliqua Cicatrix apparet vulnere, ergo vulnus non est plene sanatum.
I have been so long on this Testimony of Pareus that I must omit the rest, whereof I shall soon produce an hundred, if I do but understand that it will be worth the labor. Here I recur to my former observation, How the fury of contentious Disputation would rob men of that, which both Grace and Nature evidently teach. And I shall but desire the Reader that wants human Testimony, 1. To read over our English Sermons that have been preached in any times of Plague or other Calamity, or on days of humiliation, whereof of late years we have had great store, and tell me whether they deny God's anger, and displeasure, his threatening and our sin, to be causes of our sufferings? 2. To hearken to the Confessions of the Godly in their sufferings, yea of the opposers of this truth, when they come to lie under any long or heavy suffering, and approach their death, and hear whether they will say, that none of this is a punishment for sin, nor from God's wrath▪ or threatening, and whether they never pray God to turn from his wrath and displeasure against them?
Conclu. 27. Punishment is the Genus: and it is, A Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral Evil: or malum passionis propter malum culpae, as some define it, Punishment is either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we call ordinarily chastilement, which is for the amendment of the sufferer, so that chastisement is a species of punishment. If any doubt of this, I will give him a catalogue long enough of Schoolmen, Lawyers, Philosophers and Reformed Divines to prove it, as soon as • find it worth the while.
Conclu. 28. God's sanctifying the sufferings of the Saints, and working out of them a greater good, doth not make them cease to be Evils in their own nature, nor to be so far as evil, punishments for our sins▪ The good is but by accident, Poison is poison still, though the Physician can make a medicine of it: yea in the use it is still penal, as being a natural evil inflicted for a moral evil, that is, for sin.
Conclu. 2. God threateneth these things to his own people if they sin. The matter of all threatenings is evil of Punishment: therefore these chastisements are Evils of punishment. It is the Benefit of the suffering, and not the suffering itself that God promiseth. God doth not threaten to do men Good, nor promise them punishment, as punishment.
Conclu. 30. Let the Holy Scripture be judge whether they are Punishments or not, Lam. 3. 39. Wherefore doth a living man complain? A man for the Punishment of his sins? 4. 6. For the Punishment of the Iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater then, &c. 22. The Punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion, &c. Hos. 12. 2. The Lord also hath a Controversy with Judah and will punish Jacob according to his ways, according to his doings will he recomperse him. Amos 3. 2. You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities, Ezra 9. Thou our God hast punished us less then our iniquities. Jer. 9. 25. I will punish all you that are Circumcised with the uncircumcised. Lev. 26. 18, 24. I will punish you seven times more, &c. Lev. 26. 24, 41, 43. If then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept of the Punishment of their Iniquity, &c. (Its certain some among the Jews were sincere.) Psal. 73. 5. Its said of the wicked that they are not plagued like other men. And verse 14. David saith of himself, All the day long have I been Plagued, and chastened every morning. Psal. 36. 1, 2, 3, 4. O Lord rebuke me not in thy wrath; neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure: For thine Arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore: There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger, neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. So Psal. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep: For if we would Judge ourselves we should not be judged. But when we are Judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world. And the word chastisement is put frequently in Scripture, (not only for the Paternal Punishing of Children with intents of special good to them thereby, but also) for the Punishment even of enemies: or for any punishment in general. Psal. 94. 10. He that chastiseth the Heathen, shall not he correct? Isa. 53. 5. The chastisement of our Peace was upon him, &c. Jer. 30. 14, 15. And that all our chastisements are Punishments, the definition given them frequently in scripture telleth us. For it ever ascribeth them to man's sin, as the provoking meritorious Cause: and to God's anger, as the efficient cause; and speaketh of them as hurtful in themselves. And evil of suffering, inflicted for sin, is Punishment. Nay that Mr. Cradon may see that I have spoken no higher then Scripture, see divers places where imperfect pardon is mentioned, or where some sins of the Regenerate are said to be in some respect unpardoned. Lam. 3. 42. We have transgressed and have Rebelled; thou hast not pardoned. Num. 14. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 32, 33, 34. Pardon I beseech thee the iniquity of this people, &c. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the Glory of the Lord: Because all those men which have seen my Glory, and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice, surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it. 29. Your Carkasses shall fall in this wilderness, &c. 33, 34. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms until your Carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days, &c. shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. Nay if I had said that a man's sins may be partly unpardoned, when his soul is in Heaven, what a peal would Mr. Cr. have rung me? yet as to Executive pardon, which is not punishing, consider whether the Bodies lying in the grave to the Resurrection be no punishment? which is unremitted as to the execution, though it be remitted perfectly as to the Right of a Resurrection at that time. And see an Example of a man's sins punished on his Posterity, when his soul was at rest, and God would not pardon them: 2 Kings 24. 4. Surely at the Commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh according to all that he did: and also for the innocent blood that he shed, (for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood) which the Lord would not pardon.
Conclu. 31. I think those that are against me in this confess, that the Regenerate are under a threatening, and are punished with temporal punishments, and consequently that Punishments they are: so the Marrow of Modern Divinity, where it earnestly presseth Believers not to look at their sins as making them liable to God's everlasting wrath and Hell-sire, nor to crave pardon and forgiveness for them that thereupon they may escape that penalty; yet saith that the Law of Christ threateneth a penalty which we must fear and pray to have our sins pardoned as to that penalty: which is the want of near and sweet Communion with God in Christ, even in the time of this life, and a lyableness to all temporal afflictions, as fruits and effects of the transgressions of that Law; and therefore when ever we feel the Lord's chastening hands on us, he would have us ask forgiveness of si • , as we are taught in the Lord's prayer; page 206. 208. 210. Now I would know how this standeth with perfect pardon: and how it comes to pass that man must bear any punishment himself, when Christ hath made a perfect satisfaction? when they have answered themselves, they will perhaps see what others may answer. But I should have thought that this doctrine here delivered, against praying for pardon, as to the eternal punishment, should have made a Christians ears to tingle, and he should have felt by experience the Spirit of Christ within him contradicting it. I Confess these and many other such passages which I then mentioned (& Mr Cr. hath like himself attempted to palliate) did urge me in the Append. of my Aphor. to say somewhat against it, p. 99. and in the Aphor. p. 330▪ to marvel that such a Bo • k should have so many applauding Epistles of such Divines. I hope Mr. Caryl takes not these words ill, because there are two Epistles of his: For as I unfeignedly reverenced him, and some others whose Epistles I there found, so I neither named him, nor intended his dishonor: though I cannot deny but that I am sorry to see his name both there, and here (in Mr. Cr. )
Conclu. 32. Nay the punishment which remaineth unremoved, (and so far unpardoned) to the Saints in this life, is not so contemptible, or small, as to occasion men to deny it to be evil, or punishment. For 1. The earth and other creatures retain still that Curse, Gen. 3. 17, 18. which was passed on it for our sakes, and so was our punishment. 2. Man undergoeth that life of labor & sweat there threatened. 3. The seed of the Serpent bruiseth our heel, as was sentenced. Satan hath power to tempt us to sin, frequently and violently, and that to heinous sins; which is a sore punishment in itself to the Godly: Though I say not that all temptation is penal, for Adam had some in innocence: Yet to be given up to frequent sin, foul temptations, is: and to have the Messenger of Satan to buffet us. 4. Wicked men are left, as thorns in our sides, not only to vex us, but to provoke us to evil, and to entice us with them to sin, which we are too prone too of ourselves. 5. The Godly are oft punished justly by men for their miscarriages; and perhaps with death itself. 6. But the sorest punishment is sin itself, which as it is permitted and left unhealed, is a punishment of former sin. I think those that are most offended with me, will yield to this, and like well of Mr. Rutherfords copious endeavors to prove that God punisheth sin with sin, in his elaborate audacious Disputations de Provident à Paul groaned under this penalty, O wretched man that I am, &c. Rom. 7. 7. The estrangedness from God, loss of communion with him, sense of his displeasure, wants of Grace and comfort, are no small punishments. 8. So is death and the bodies lying in the earth till the Resurrection without life or fruition of God. If it be said that these do work for our greater good. I Answ. 1. It is certain our sufferings for Christ do. 2. Castigatory afflictions are intended to our good, but that is by accident that they accomplish it, and are nevertheless punishments themselves. 3. God would give us the good, without the evil of punishment, if we did not sin. 4. It is contrary to the judgment of many of the best Expositors, that Rom. 8. 28. doth speak of sin; And it is hard to show how all sin worketh for our good. It is possible a Godly man may lose his first Love in a great measure, and decline to a very low degree of Grace, and a scandalous life, and a terrified conscience, and so die; And how it should do him good to Love God▪ less then he did, to have less faith, less humility, &c. I know not, when the good of Affliction is to increase these Graces. Besides every man dieth in some degree of sin habitual▪ and actual, which is not cured till he leave the flesh: and what good that last sin doth him, I know not. Nor do I remember any Promise that his bodies lying in the Grave till the Resurrection, shall be better then if he had ascended with Enoch and Elias: though Christ love and regard that very dust, and will give it at last a greater happiness then we lost. All this punishment▪ therefore I suppose is yet left unremoved, and if you will call this the curse or part of the curse, it must be said that part of the curse is not actually removed. Yet I conceive it fittest to say that believers are freed from the curse, and are not under it. 1. Because the word Curse, usually signifieth the great destroying penalty, inconsistent with God's special Love, and making the sinner accursed, that is, miserable: and so we are freed from it, for every Believer is freed and justified, from any charge that can be brought against him as to damnation, or destructive-punishment. 2. And their right to a future deliverance is more full then the actual deliverance yet is. 3. It is our own sin that hath made sufferings necessary to our good. 4. As long as Christ hath made sure for us in heaven a far greater glory then we lost, and which will make all these sufferings to be none, we may well say, that he hath done the office of a Savior perfectly, though the time be not yet come for our full deliverance.
Conclu. 33. Though in our first Justification and pardon, we are acquit from all sin past, and nothing lieth against us, and so that Justification may be said to be perfect and have no degrees, yet I conceive that our pardon is not absolutely perfect as it shall be at the last. My reasons are 1. As to the continuance of it, it is yet but conditional (how certain soever): and that is not so perfect, as it will be when the Condition is performed: even our perseverance, which is the Condition of persevering Justification. 2. We have many a thousand sins yet to be pardoned, that were not pardoned at first, as not then existing. 3. And all the foresaid penalties to be remitted actually, by the removal of them. 4. And the great absolution at judgment is behind.
Conclu. 34. It is not only affliction as such, but punishment as punishment, that is necessary both to God's great ends in governing the world, and also in particular, to the best Saint on earth, for the right ordering of his life. Meer affliction is no act of a Governor, as such, but punishment is. And if men suffer never so much, and know not that it is for sin, and from God's displeasure, and to scourge them to obedience, it will not do them that good that it is sent for, and must be done. If Christ had delivered Believers from being under any threat, or liable to any execution of a threatening for sin, then he had brought them to be from under Law, and then he had set them from under Government, and then he had set them from under God, and then he had either made them God's, or else bruits uncapable of Government. Whiles Saints are imperfect, and while they are under Government, God will govern them by the due means and instruments of Government, Laws having Rewards and Punishments annexed.
How and by what Laws he Governeth the Glorified, and Angelical nature, I pretend not to know, (further then that the knowledge of God himself, and so of his holy Nature and Will, is their Law, which conjoined with perfect Love and holiness, will procure perfect obedience and blessedness) But sure I am that as the Angels themselves, when they (some of them) fell, were subjected to penalty, and so its like did before live under a kind of penal Law, that is, knew that if they sinned they should suffer, so much more clear is it to us, that man while he is in flesh, is not otherwise to be governed agreeably to his nature. And Grace itself is not given him to be instead of this Law, and so to make it void, but to conform him to it in mind and life. And as threatenings are of necessity for the Government of the Saints themselves, so are some degree of execution. For a threatening which we know shall never be executed, though we offend, is no threatening: and is as dishonorable to the Lawgiver, as useless to the subject; except where the same Lawgiver prescribeth certain terms and means for remedy, and so the case is devolved thither. Nor did God see it consistent with our present safety here, to remedy the whole by a perfect Impunity. Man hath flesh and sense, as well as Reason, and hath need of some Execution as well as of the threatening.
Conclu. 35. None of a Believers Castigatory punishments, do in the least measure satisfy God's Justice: Yet is there some Demonstration of Justice in and by them so far as they are punishments; though there may be a far greater Demonstration of Love, in and by them, in regard of the good to which they are intended.
Conclu. 36. It is not the least dishonor to Christ's satisfaction, or derogation from its sufficiency and perfection, to say that Believers bear some penalty themselves. Because Christ's satisfaction is to be denominated sufficient and perfect▪ in reference to its ends, and intended effects: And it was never his end in satisfying, to take his people from under a penal Law in this life, nor to cure the wound which the first sin made, perfectly, till the Resurrection, nor to free men from all sin, or all sufferings of Castigatory punishments in this life. See Pareus words before cited, to this effect: And the Confession of the Marrow of Modern Divines, about temporal penalties. (The same reason clearly proveth that it is no derogation from Christ's satisfaction or merits, that we assert a necessity of Obedience, and performance of Conditions▪ for obtaining of some of the fruits of his satisfaction)
Conclu. 37. How far a true Believer may lie under terrors and wounds of conscience, and how long and how commonly they may doubt of salvation (by may, I mean not lawfully, but possibly, not Debet but Potest ) I have shown my thoughts in my Method for Peace of conscience. And sad experience speaks it too loud.
Conclu. 38. How far also it may accidentally be a duty for a Believer in some sad Cases to question his Justification or pardon, and so to search after it, (though it be his great sin that he is in that uncertainty, and his greater sin that caused it) I have shown my thoughts in the same book
Conclu. 30. How far a Believer may fear hell, and labor to escape it, I have shown my thoughts in the same book, and the Append. of my Aphor. and somewhat before.
Conclu. 40. By all that hath been said on the Negative and Affirmative concerning the Laws obliging Believers to punishment, for every sin till Remission do dissolve the Obligation, It is evident that the Obligation of the Law to Believers, is exceedingly different from the Obligation to Adam before the Promise, or the Obligation on unbelievers, or the Obligation of the Law of Grace, on the finally impenitent and unbelievers. The Law obliged Adam before the Promise, without any Remedy, existent, or revealed: And therefore if he had then been Judged, before the Interposition of a Savior, he must have been condemned and executed. The Law obligeth unbelievers to eternal punishment, by an actual obligation, remaining in full force upon them, and as truly unremedied and not dissolved as if there had been no Remedy provided, (till they believe) but yet a Remedy sufficient is offered if they will accept it; and the Moral Law alone, is not the Rule of their judgment to Condemnation: but before the sentence pass, it will be inquired whether or no they accepted and used the Remedy. The Law of the Redeemer, or of Grace doth pass a Peremptory, Irreversible, Remediless sentence (virtually) on all that die unbelievers and impenitent: But the Obligation of the Moral Law on the Believer for every new sin, is such as hath a perfect Remedy at hand, even Christ and the Promise, and he hath a certain present interest in that Christ and Promise, and hath the Spirit within him to cause a renewed application, and (at least for ordinary sins of infirmity) it seems that the Habit of Faith and Repentance which is ever in him, is a Condition which qualifieth him for present Remission; and so the guilt is but transient, and the justisted state is permanent, nor is it such a guilt as makes an intercession in our Adoption or Union with Christ, or casteth us out of God's favor: but only maketh Remission necessary: And most properly we must say, that the Law concludeth that we deserve punishment, and speaketh merely de Debitô, but nothing de Eventu, against a Believer, Observe this: A Law as a Law, doth directly constitute Dueness, and so the Commination makes the Penalty due to the Delinquent. One use of the Law is to be Norma Judicii; and God is Just, and therefore though the Law as a Law simply bind not him to execute it, nor deprive him of a power to Relax it and Dispense with it; yet the perfect wisdom and Justice of the Law-giver, and the ends of Government, forbid the doing of this▪ but upon a valuable consideration, which may equally attain those ends: So that Implyedly, Indirectly, by Accident, the Law most commonly speaks de Eventu, as it doth directly, and per se de Debito: So that the subject must expect the Execution. This being premised, I apply it to our Case. The Law so condemned Adam, that it gave him cause to expect the execution eventually (till the remedy was revealed) as well as to conclude it his Due. The Law so condemneth unbelievers, (though Elect) that it gives them cause to expect the Execution eventually, unless they will believe; and therefore to expect it while they remain unbelievers. The Law of Nature and Grace so condemn all final unbelievers, as that they are left without hope, its sentence being Peremptory and Irreversible, not only de Jure, but also de Eventu, foretelling that there shall never be a Remedy. And this is Accidental, or added to it, as it is a Law: and in this it exceedeth in tenor the very Law of Works in its utmost rigor to Adam: for though that contained no Remedy, yet it excluded it not for the future, as this doth. But now the Moral Law, doth so threaten punishment to a true Believer for his daily frailties, as that it only as a Law doth constitute the Debitum poenae; it speaks de Jure, what we deserve; but de Eventu, that we shall actually suffer hell fire, it hath not a word to say; because the Promise stops its mouth: So that it gives not the Believer any just cause to expect the eventual Execution of it, but only to bewail his sin, and fly to Christ, and beg and receive pardon from him by his Promise. In a word. The Law bound Adam to a punishment Irremissible, as to any remedy then revealed, but not so absolutely. The Law bindeth unbelievers to a punishment remissible (in Law), but uncertain whether it shall be remitted. It bindeth Believers to a punishment presently to be remitted. It bindeth final unbelievers and impenitent Rebels against the Lord that bought them, to a Punishment, Absolutely as to the Event, Remediless and Irremissible.
But I will add this true Confession of my Heart, how ever it be taken: Though I have truly spoke my opinion concerning the speed and facility of the pardon of Believers sins; yet I am not able to practice according to this opinion. I find something within me, that will not suffer me so easily or quickly to conclude that I am pardoned: Nay that forceth me to beg pardon daily for all the past sins of my life, and especially the more observable; and that as earnestly, as if they were newly committed: yea and forceth me to conceive, that I do well in so doing: and indeed so carrieth me to it, that I dare not forbear it, nor repent it: but indeed have much to say to Justify it.
And thus Reader, I have given thee my Confession, how far I think Believers are yet under the Law and its threatening, or the effects thereof. And for all these two last Chapters, thou mayest thank Mr. Caryls Epistle to Mr. Crandons Book: For I was passing on further, when that came to my hands; and judged it necessary to make this Addition for the satisfying of so Reverend a man as Mr. Caryl, perceiving him so deeply offended, as to suppose that Mr. Crandon vindicateth, and consequently that I oppose the very fundamentals of a Christians Comforts, about his deliverance from the Curse of the Law, and his Justification by Works, and Faith as a Work. The Lord of Mercy grant that my soul miss not of any part of the deliverance which I have here professed to acknowledge, and then I doubt not but I shall be everlastingly happy, notwithstanding all my omissions, or mistakes, or the censures of my Brethren.
But I must entreat the Reader to expect but little order of Method in these Propositions, for indeed I do but hastily write them down as they come into my memory.
But yet I remember one thing more I have undertaken to perform, for Mr. Caryl; of which next.
Reader, In this place I added my Reply to Mr. Crandon, which upon consideration of its unfitness for this place, I have since removed into the end of my Apology.
CHAP. VI.
Whether it be true that the Papists do maintain no other merit than I do, as Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Crandon fearlessly affirm.
SECT. I.
MR. Eyre in his Book against Mr. Woodbridge most confiden • lie affirms that the Pa • ists ascribe no more meritoriousness to Works then I do, no not any of them: Mr. Crandon saith of my Doctrine of Merit thus, pag. 192. par. 1. In general I affirm, there is not to be found any of the most Trentified and deepest branded Papists, that hath in this point spoken more derogatorily of the Grace of God, and more superlatively to the exalting of man's menstruous Righteousness; but contrariwise divers, especially of the more ancient Schoolmen that have spoken more modestly and moderately of both then Mr. Br.
And pag. 190. Can he name any one of the worst Papists or Jesuits that doth attribute merit to man's Works in a higher degree then? or doth not when he hath extolled man's merits salve the Grace of God as finely as himself? Are not his words and theirs about God's Grace and man's Merits the same? Doth he add anything here of his own that he hath not learned of them? Do not Bellarmine and his Brethren speak altogether so fully and more fully, seemingly to vindicate the Grace of God, &c.?
I promised on this occasion to show you how ill these men deal with the Ninth Commandment, by producing sufficient evidence of the falsehood of their speeches: Though I need not do it for any man of reading; yet for the sake of younger scholars I will briefly do somewhat.
What my own Judgment is concerning Merit, I have fully declared: I disclaim the very name, as unfit for our use in this case: Yet I say, Improperly and unfitly and largely, our works may be called Meritorious; not that they may fitly or lawfully be so called: but that the thing is true which is so spoken, though the terms be unfit: and thus all our Divines against the Papists excuse the Fathers: and this is all that ever I held or wrote.
Now that the Papists do ascribe more to, or say more of the merit of works, then I do, I shall leave past question, when I have shown you, 1. What our writers charge them with, 2. What they say themselves, so that if you will believe either Protestants, or Papists themselves, the case shall be clear.
But before I come to it, I have these two things to premise. 1. I do here confess that Satan took occasion from the false accusations of the men before named, and the unconscionable spleenish Jealousies and Censures of many others, to assault me with a Temptation to a very grievous sin; that is, to have stretched and racked the words of the Papists to the utmost that I could, thereby to make them seem more distant from the Protestants then indeed they are, that I might thereby appear to be as distant from them. He thus set upon me to move me to this sin. Thou seest what furious spirits are in many men, and how violent and implacable they are against dissenters, and how little Conscience they make of the vilest slanders; and what firebrands they continue to the poor divided Church. If thou dost not manifest yet a greater distance from Papists, they will brand thee everywhere as a Papist or as Erroneous and too near them: and though thou little regard this as to thy own name, yet oughtest thou to regard it for the benefit of the Church: For if thy name by these men be blasted, and a Jealousy and Odium raised on thy doctrine, thy Labors will become unprofitable; and the common people will be deterred from the reading of thy writings, or read them with prejudice; yea and the world will be prejudiced against the truths which thou deliverest, as supposing them to be Popery, and will neither receive them now from thee, nor hereafter from any other. There is no way therefore to be taken but by making the worst of their sayings, to make the world believe that the Papists are more erroneous and further from us in the doctrine of Merit and Justification then indeed they are.
The Premises were too true, that is, the Antecedent; but the consequence so bad, and the Conclusion so evidently contrary to God's word, that quickly shown me that it was from the Tempter.
2. I do therefore now profess, that if Mr. Cr. and Mr. Eyr's words were true, that the Papists give no more to works, nor make them any otherwise Meritorious then I do; I am heartily glad of it, and shall hope that they are so much nearer the Truth and the Reformed Churches then they have been taken to be.
And I do profess that if I knew that the Papists hold every point that I hold, I would not therefore forsake one of them, no more then I will deny God, because the Papists do confess him: but I would be glad that we were unanimous: nor shall the name of Popery, by the grace of God deter me from owning any truth that I know, or from Receiving any that I do not know.
I do also profess, upon a survey of their writings, that many hotbrain'd incendiaries on both sides do persuade the world that our distance is greater in the doctrine of Justification and Merits, then indeed it is: And I do believe that it would be a very useful work of any that write against the Papists on these points, to gather the nominal controversies by themselves, and then let us see all the Real doctrinal differences by themselves, when the verbal differences are laid by, that we may know how far we differ indeed, in the matter, and how far in mere words. To which Purpose Mr. Woe oton d Reconcil. hath said somewhat. For example, seeing they use and obstinately will use, the word Justification for Sanctification, or as including it, which we do not; and seeing we confess that Justification and Remission of sin are either all one, or differing but notionally, or very little, or that Remission and Acceptance is our Justification; and seeing that we are better agreed with the Papists about the meaning of the word remission of sin then about the word Justification, were it not worth the while to inquire diligently how far we agree and diasgree, about Remission of sin, and that while lay by the notion of Justification?
I do also believe that it is a heinous sin in any man to study to widen the difference, and make it seem greater, then indeed it is: when firebrands have consumed themselves in making havoc of Christ's Church, it is Healing and Closing in peaceable Consultations, and humble conjunction in enquiring after truth, and covering the tolerable failings of each other, that must Recover the Church if ever it be Recovered, and must find that Truth, that is now lost by contention, and covered in the Ashes and the Ruines which faction and passion have turned some into. Restauration and Healing lies more in uniting and closing, then the Dividing furious party will believe. And even with Papists themselves we must so far endeavor it, as may justify us before God and men, that the Division is not caused by us, but by them, and that it is not long of us, but of them, that it continueth unhealed.
Yet I still profess, that we must not for love of unity, renounce any of God's truth, nor subscribe to any known error.
These things premised, I come to tell you what Protestant Divines do charge the Papists with in matter of Merit; that you may see whether it be anymore then I assert: Yet I must advertise you, 1. That it is not all the Papists that our ordinary Writers do lay these charges upon: 2. That I undertake not to prove every charge that any Divine shall bring against them, much less to Justify every angry word, but shall only tell you the charge, and refer you to try and judge of the verity. And to avoid tediousness of transcribing, I shall for most of them, but cite the places in their writings where you may find their words.
SECT. II.
1. PErkins (whom I cited to Mr. Eyres ) saith thus, The Popish Church placeth merits within men, making two sorts thereof; the merit of the person, and the merit of the work. The merit of the work is a dignity or excellency in the work, whereby it is made fit and enabled to deserve Life-everlasting for the doer. And works as they teach are meritorious two ways: 1. By Covenant, because God hath given a promise of Reward to them. 2. By their own Dignity: For Christ hath merited that our works might merit. And this is the substance of their Doctrine. Perk. Reform. Cathol. of Merit. Vol. 1. pag. 574, 575. See more Vol. 1. p. 103. 2. c. pag. 187. 2. c. pag. 249. 1. a. p. 341. 1. d. p. 573. 651. 2. b. p. 69. d. &c.
2. Mr. Wotton in his Defense of this Book of Perkins, and this place against Bishop, pag. 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293. hath much that way. He saith, We charge you, and that truly, without ignorance or slander, and according to your Doctrine of merits, that you need neither Christ's merits nor God's mercies; for so much of your purchase of everlasting life as is made by good Works: For if your works be such as that in the rigor of Justice, they deserve everlasting life, as wages, what need they either Christ's blood, or God's mercy to make them meritorious? The use of Christ's blood is to wash away sin: where there is no sin, what should Christ's blood do? And pag. 289 This then is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning merits: that the good Works of them that have the first Just • fication, do truly and wholly Deserve everlasting f • licity of God, as wages due to them by Debt, not by Grace. See also the same Mr. Wotton's Trial of the Romish Clergy, pag. 364.
3. Dr. Willet Synops. Papis. of Merit of Works, saith thus, Our Works, say the Papists, are pleasing and acceptable to God, even after the same manner that Christ and h •• Works were: Tapper▪ ex Tileman. loc. 11. Err. 14. Again Bellarmine saith, that the good works of the righteous, are properly and verily meritorious of eternal life, even ex condignô, of Condignity or Worthiness in the highest degree, Bellar. c. 16. and that non solùm ration pacti, sed ration operis, in respect of the work as well as of the Covenant or Promise. Again, Bellarmine saith, that the trust which the righteous have in God, ariseth not only of Faith, but springeth also from their merits.
Again, Bellarmine saith, that our confidence ariseth not only from good Works, but that our confidence and trust may be reposed also in our merits. See him on Rom. 3. and 4.
But I perceive, should I go on to cite the words of others, to the same purpose in so well known a case, it would be tedious to myself and to the Reader, I will therefore only cite the places of some more, and that but one of many that might easily be cited.
4. See Jewels defense of Apolog. pag. 77. 319. 331. 321. 322. 323. &c. Edit. Printed, 1567.
5. See Calvin's Institut. lib. 3. c. 15. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Et c. 14. Sect. 12, 13, 14. Et alibi passim.
6. Chemnitz Exam. Council. Trident. (8 o . Printed 1606. pag. 195. 232. 274. 282. 354. 169. 160. 336. 195. 196. 200. 201. Et frequ.
7. Chamier Tom. 3. l. 14. de operibus, cap. 1. per totam pag. ( mihi ) 455. &c.
8. Davenant de Justitiâ habitually & actuali cap. 53. pag. 570. 571. 603. Et passim.
9. Pelargus Jesuitism. loc. 9. pag. 50, 51, 52, 53. & loc. 10. fol. 54, 55, 56. & in Math. 25.
10. Junius Lect. in Daniel. Tom. operum 1. pag. (mihi ) 1204, 1205. &c. & Tom. 2. p. 1299. & passim.
11. Pareus in Genes. pag. (mihi) 1401. 1402. 1293. 1294. Idem in Rom. 3. & 4. frequ. ut pag. (mihi ) 591. A. 795. B. 185. D. 229. D. 230. 232. 238. 1142. 1018. Idem in Galat. p. 114. 154. 293. Et in Corinth. (Impress. Genu. 1614) p. 98 99. 27. 50. 100. 92. 157. 426. 442. & in Hebr. p. 329. 545. 556. 136. Idem Bellarmine. Castigat. de Justif. & operib. per tot.
12. Rivet. Catholic. Orthodox. Tom. 2. Tract. 4. Qu. 15. pag. 310. ad p. 322. & Qu. 17. Sect. 7. Idem in Dispute. de satisfact. & merit. & saepissime in Genes. & Exod.
13. Zanchius, Vol. 3. Compend Relig. loc. 11. de Justific. & operib. p. 767. &c. et alibi passim.
14. Fulk on Rhem. Testam. in Math. 25. Sect. 1, 2. Rom. 8. Sect. 5. Rom. 11. Sect. 4. 1 Cor. 3. Sect. 2. 2 Cor. 1. Sect. 1. 2 Tim. 4. Sect. 4. Luk. 20. Sect. 1. Heb. 13. Sect. 8. Col. 1. Sect. 2. 2 Thes. 1. Sect. 52. Apoc. 3. Sect. 2.
15. Mornaeus Plessiacus of the Mass, lib. 3. cap. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. fol. 341. to 388.
16. Sadeel, adverse. human. satisfaction. pag. 201. Et per tot. Et de uncio Christi sacrificio contra missam per totum: Et adversus monachos Burdegalenses passim.
17. Cameron ( operum Genu. edit. fol.) pag. 46. 47. 44. 170. 616. 847.
18. Vossius Thes. de operum meritis edit. Oxoniens. pag. 65. & sequent.
19. Scultetus Medulla Patrum pag. 1201. in oper. Basilii.
20. Johan. Crocius, de Justificat. Dispute. 5. & 7, 8, 9, & 10. per totas.
21. Guilielm. Rivet, de Justificat. Vindic. pag. 260, 261. &c.
22. Sam. Maresius, College. Theolog. pag. 298, 299, &c. Idem Exeges. Catech. p. 344. fully.
23. Altingius, Problem. Theolog. pag. 210, 211, 212. Idem explicat. Catech. pag. 298. Idem Loc. Commun. part. 1. 236. & part. 2. 689. &c.
24. Cloppenburgius, Syntagm. select. Dispute. pag. 530. 531.
25. Pemble of Justification. Sect. 2. cap. 1.
If I thought these were not enough, or that number would satisfy, I would so far conquer my impatiency as to add the like from Luther▪ Melancthon, many Churches Confessions, Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Musculus, Zwingli, Illericus, Wigandus, Hemmingius, Hunnius, Brochmond, Polanus, Walaeus, Polyander, Thysius, Trelcatius, Laurentius, Rivius, Molinaeus, Triglandius, Grynaeus, Danaus, Piscator, Vrsine, Gwalther, Lud. Crocius, Conc. Bergius, Gomarrus, Paulus Ferrius, Sharpius, Beza, &c. Cartwright, Whitaker, Reynolds, Twisse, Field, with multitudes more, who all affirm that the Papists do hold that Doctrine of merits, which as to the name and thing, I do constantly disclaim. These that I have named, I have not only seen and known that they so speak, but have them at hand by me to cite, were it useful, (all save one or two) with many more.
SECT. III.
IF our own Divines are to be credited, then I have proved that Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. are not. I come now to give you the testimonies of the Papists themselves concerning their own Faith.
1. Bellarmine (Printed Ingolst. 1605. 8 o .) pag. 2567, 2568, &c. cap. 17. lib. 5. de Justificat. (which I cited already to Mr. E. ) determineth the Question, Utrum opera bona sint meritoria ex condigno ration pacti tantum? aut ration operis tantum? aut ration utriusque? Media (inquit) sententia nobis videtur probabilior, quae docet opera bona Justorum meritoria esse vitae aeternae ex condigno, ration pacti & operis simul; non quidem quod sine pacto, vel Acceptione non habeat opus bonum proportionem ad vitam aeternam; sed quia non tenetur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale mercedi, nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino & principibus Theologorum S. Thom. S. Bonavent. & aliis. pag. 2570. I am vero opera bona justorum meritoria esse vitae aeternae ex condigno, non solum ration pacti & acceptationis, sed etiam ration operis ita ut in opere bono ex gratia precedente sit quaedam proportio & aequalitas ad premium vitae aeternae probatur his argumentis. And so he annexeth 7 A • guments to prove the Proportion; and in answering Durand, saith, that as the seed naturally contains the tree, Sic etiam charitas Dei in cord diffusa, morali meritoriaque virtute gloriam ipsam continet. And the 18. Chap. he bestoweth in answering the objections made against this. And lib. 1. c. 21. especially pag. 2208, 2209. he laboreth to prove potius fundari meritum de Congruo in aliqua dignitate operis, quam in promissione.
If I should add no more, me thinks that man's face should blush (whether Mr. Cr. Mr. E. or his Patrons who said the like) that affirmed that Bellarmine himself gave no more to works then I; and that he owned no other merit then I, and that (as Mr. E. saith) the Papists owned no merit, but ex pacto; nay that no Papists went further in this then I. Look one of these men in the face after the reading of this, and see whether they blush not, if they have any remnants of modesty left.
2. Caejetan not only saith as much as Bellarmine in 1, 2. qu. 114. art. 3. but is opposed by Bellar. himself as going too far, as holding opera bona Justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex Condigno, ration operis, etiamsi extaret nulla Divina Conventio. Vid. Bellarm. de Justific. l. 5. c. 17. p. 2567.
3. Dominicus à soto (though he deny all merit de Congruo ) is of the same Opinion with Cajetan lib. de Natur. & Grat. cap. 7. and is with him cited and opposed by Bellarmine.
4. Vasquez is as bad or worse, and more laborious in it, then they in 1, 2. disp. 218. & 204. cap. 4. & 1. & 208. n. 5, 6. & d. 210. c. 4. laboring to prove that opera Justorum ex sola ingenita Dignitate meritoria sunt (viz. quia facta à justo per gratiam ) so also in 2. sent. dist. 27. & in 1, 2. disp. 214.
5. See Suarez at large D. l. 12. 33, 34, 35, 36.
6. Aquinas in 12. qu. 14. art. 1. c. & art. 3. c. Si consideretur secundum operis substantiam, & secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio sic non potest ibi esse Condignitas propter maximam inaequalitatem: sed est ibi Congruitas propter quandam aequalitatem proportionis. Si autem loquamur de meritorio secundum quod procedit ex gratia Spiritus sancti, sic est meritorium vitae aeternae ex condigno: sic enim valor meriti attenditur secundum virtutem Spiritus sancti, moventis nos in vitam aeternam. &c. Vide etiam respons. ad 1 m . 2 d . & 3 m . ibid. & Art. 8. & 9.
7. Romaeus de libertate & necessit. operum Veritat. 22 1 . Si doctioribus creditor illud dicitur esse Meritum de Condigno cui merces reddenda est secundum Justitiae debitum: ita sane ut inter meritum & mercedem attendatur aequalitas quantitatis, quemadmodum in Commutativa Justitia, put a tantum quantum. De congruo autem dicitur quis mereri, cum scilicet inter meritum & premium non paritas quantitatis, sed Proportionis attenditur. This is high indeed.
8. Peresius de Traditionibus parte tertiâ de sacrific. Altaris p. 141. dicit, 4. Quod Crimina & peccata his sacrificiis delentur: non tantum ejus qui communicate sed ejus pro quo offertur & representatur modo impedimentum nonponaet; & hoc quidem ex vi ipsius institutionis & excellentiae illius qui in eis mysteriis offertur, & Merito rei oblatae, quod scholastici dicunt ex opere operato. Valent ergo sacrificia oblata ad remissionem criminum & peccatorum id est reliquiarum quae in nobis remanserunt post indulgentiam Culparum. Et part. 1. page 108. Conjungimus Contritionem & satisfactionem qua perfect Deo Reconciliantur peccatores per bona & poenalia opera.
9. Costerus Enchirid. cap. 7. de Meritis bonor. op. page (mihi) 286. Observa • dum est scripturam quando de Retributione loquitur, tade • verborum formula uti cum agit de Justo reddendis praemiis, qua utitur cum improbis supplicia denunciat, ut clare perspiciatur, non minus nos bonis actionibus aeternam foelicitatem, quam malis & flagitiosis promereri aeterna supplicia. Et p 288. Ita opera nostra propter Christum, qui nobis ceu membris utitur, & spiritum sanctum inhabitantem, & per nos operantem, digna sunt coelesti praemio. Et p. 289. 2. Intelligimus ex dictis rationem haenc Justitiae qua Deus aeternam vitam Justis in mercedem operum donat, ad utramque quidem Justitiae partem aliquo modo pertinere. In ea tamen magis elucere distributivam, quae personarum dignitatem intuetur, quam Commutativam quae operum aequabilitatem considerat. So that he takes the reward to be partly, though not principally according to Commutative Justice. And page 294. 3. Considerantur ut effect a à filio Dei, atque inhabitante Spiritu sancto, qua Consideratione aequalitas invenitur inter opera & premium, verumque meritum atque Justitiam.
10. W. Bishop against Perkins Reformed Cathol. of Merit saith, Austin saith, That the Reward cannot go before the Merit, nor be given to a man before he be worthy of it, for (saith he) what were more unjust then that? and what is more just then God? l. de. mor. Eccles. c. 25. where he concludeth that we must not be so hardly as once to demand, much less so impudent as to assure ourselves of that Crown, before we have Deserved it. Seeing then the Protestants by this their proctor, renounce all such merit and desert, they must needs also renounce their part of heaven, and not presume so much as once to demand it, &c. and much more after on the same point; making a Geometrical Proportion necessary, and to be in man's Merits, though not an Arithmetical.
11. Bailius Catechis. part. 4. qu. 17. ut in Riveti Cathol. Orthod, To. 2. p. 312, 313. (I will not tire the Reader in vain with reciting the like words of each Author.)
12. Lindanus in Panoplia lib. 3. cap. 20. & sequentibus.
13. Salmeron ad Galatas disputat. 15, 16, 17, 18.
14. Beoanus Tract. Compend. ex Manuali lib. 1. cap. 19. de bonis operibus.
15. Maldonatus Dispute. de Sacrament. Tom. 2 p. (mihi) 85, 95, 96, 98, 189. Idem in Luke 17. 7, 8. & saepissime in Mat. & Mar. & Luke, &c.
16. Genebrard in Psal. 18. ver. 13. p. 107. & in Psal. 142▪ p. 894. & page 741.
17. Pererius in Rom. cap. 6 Dispute. 10 num. 53.
18. Joh. Arboreus Theosoph. lib. 2. cap. 17 fol. 31, 32, 33.
19. Pintus in Ezek. 37. page 422, 423, &c.
20. Lombard sent. lib. 2 dist. 27. C. D. E. F. & dist. 11. D.
21. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 15. qu. 5. p. 1. art. 1. & 2 sent. dist. 27.
22 Marsilius in 2. qu. 18 art 3. Concl. 2. & 3.
23. Franscisc. de Daventria Exeges. Contr. Confess. August f. 46.
24. Gregor. de Vaelentia in Thom. Tom. 2. disp. 8. qu. 6. & de Gratiâ Divinâ cap. ult.
25. Albertus in 1. dist. 41. art. 2 • ad 2 m & ult.
26. Gabr. Biel. in 3. sent. dist. 27. & in 4 sent. dist. 14. q. 1, 2
27. Ferrariensis contra Gentes cap. 149. dub. ult.
28. Adrian Quodlib. 7. qu. 4.
29. Almain in 2. & in 4. frequ.
30. Nicol. de Orbellis in 2. sent. dist. 27. just as Aquinas he answers, and out of Ricardus.
31. All the Sorbonists in Artic Parisiens. à facult. S. Theol. Pariens. determinat. art. 4, &c. Certâ & firmâ fide credendum est, peccatorem non solum fide, sed ex operibus Justificari, &c. Opera merentur vitam aeternam & per consequence justificant hominem: Nos damnamur propter mala opera, ergo Iustificamur propter bon • . Vid. Calvini hoc artic. Confut.
32. Pennottus Propugnacul. Libertat. human Lib. cap. 13. n. & 19 per totum: where he labors to prove that both Justification and perseverance are Merited de Congruo: and answers Dominic. a soto, who contradicteth that Merit.
33. Caprelous Defens. Theol. Tho. lib. 2. dist. 27. goes the same way as Aquinas, and speaks as exactly to the point as any of them, maintaining Meritum Gloriae de Condigno ex Proportione Geometricâ etsi non Arithmeticâ, vel ex aequalitate proportio • is etsi non Qu • ntitatis; and laboriously answers Durand.
34. Sayrus Clavi Reg. li. 10. Tract. 1. cap. 2. §. 4, & 6. maintains satisfaction to God, and that it is principally to God, as distinct from Restitution which is to men only, and not to God. And this satisfaction they refer commonly to commutative Justice. Aquin. 3. qu. 85. art 3. sotus li. 4 de Instit. q. 6. art. 1. Martin. Ledesma 2, 4. q. 18. art. 1. dub. 15. concl. 4. Navar. in Manual. cap. 17. num. 6. Pet. Navar. li. 1. de restitut. cap. 2. num. 22. And Sayrus concludes that satisfaction is made even in Purgatory, if Care be not taken in this life that the heirs of the deceased make Restitution: though if they fail not through his default but their own, he takes it for a fable, that the soul in purgatory must satisfy. So Adrian. Quodlib. 11. diffic. 6. V. sylvest. verb. Testamentum: 2. quest. 9. sotus li. 4. de Instit. qu. 6. art. 1. ad 1. in fine. Martin. Ledesm. 2, 4. q. 18. art. 1. dub. 15. concl. 4. page 232. Col. 2. Navar. in Man. cap. 17 numer. 68. Pet. Navar. li. 1. de Restit. cap. 2. num. 23. & lib. 4. cap. 4. dub. 12. num. 75. Henriquez. li. 1. de poenit. cap. 6. §. 1. in annot. liter. A. Mich. Salon. in 2. 2. qu. 5. de Dominio art. 5. in princip. & in qu. 62. art. 1. in fine Gregor. de Valent. in 2. 2. disp. 5. qu. 6. punct. 2. Ludovic. Lopez. li. 1. instruct. confess • . cap, 121. ut a Sayro Cit.
35. Estius in sent. lib. 3. distin. 27. §. 5. per tot. page 85, 86. & li. 2. p. 376.
36. Joseph. de Voisin de Lege Divina, cap. 8. pag. 57, 58. ex Sepher Ikkarim Judaeo
37. Raymundus de sabundis Theolog. Natural. Titul. 82. page 126. where he saith that premium debetur de Jure Naturae, &c.
38. The Rhemists on the N. Test. frequently: as Luke. 20. Mat. 25. Rom. 8. Rom. 11. &c.
39. Viguerius Institut. cap. 9. §. 3. verse. 1. & 3, 4. fol. 102. delivereth (as he useth to do in other things) the same as Aquinas (collecting together his dispersed sayings.)
40. Lastly, the Council of Trent, Session 6. though they purposely went lower then many of their Doctors formerly had done, yet say far more then ever I said: Yea Bellarmine (ubi supr. ) affirmeth that they judged as he doth.
To name more were more easy then useful: He that will be at the pains to search the cited places of these, shall soon find, how far the Fear of God was from acting in the souls of Mr. Eyre and Mr. Cr. when they affirmed that the worst of the Papists do give no more to works then I, nor hold them Meritorious any otherwise then I, who wholly disclaim the very fitness of the Name, much more the proportion of our works to the Reward.
Let those Readers that know it not already, observe also that the Papists very much differ about the doctrine of merit among themselves: Insomuch as our Moderate and Learned Divines, do even in the point of Merit of Condignity, take the difference to be but about the very name of Merit, between us and some of them, and not the Thing. Yet even these, whom our Divines use to cite as on our side, do give more, in words at least, to man's works then ever I durst do: For they think the name of merit to be fit, and so do not I: (besides that in their doctrine of satisfactions they go yet further and use more unseemly terms then in the former.)
The Divines that give least to Merit, as denying Condignity, are Scotus, Vega, Gerson, Stella, Cassander, &c. Yet these go further then I dare follow them.
1. Scotus affirmeth that Meritum est Causa Instrumentalis respectu praemii, & per meritum acquiritur premium. I take man's works to be no Causes of the Reward, as such, nor to be Merits. ( Vid. Scot. in 1. sent. dist. 17. q. 2. &) in 4. sent. dist. 1. q. 5. fol. (mihi) 13. p. 2. he saith, hoc absolute conceditur. Et in 4. sent. dist. 14. qu. 2. fol. 124, 125. Attritio est Dispositio sive meritum de Congruo ad deletionem peccati mortalis & inductionem Justitiae, &c. et postea: in illo instanti infunderetur Gratia, quia praecessit, meritum sufficiens de Congruo, &c. quare non Justificabitur in ultimo instanti, &c. Vide etiam in 4. sent. dist. 2. q. 1. fol. 19. & dist. 13. q. 2. fol. 118. K. & dist. 22. q. 1. art. 2. fol. 169. & dist. 49. q. 1. fol. 263.
2. Vega himself saith in Opusc. de Iustific. q. 7. prop. 4. Fides & alia bona opera, quibus disponimur ad gratiam gratum facientem, Meritoria sunt ex Congruo ejusdem gratiae & nostrae Iustificationis. Et in Defens. Council. li. 8. c. 8. Possunt peccatores fide, spe, dilection, eleemosynâ, poenitentiâ & martyrio & aliis bonis operibus Mereri ex Congruo gratiam Iustificationis. Where did ever I say this much?
3. Vide & Alvarez de Auxiliis, saying too much, disp. 59. &. 60. per tot.
4. Vide & stellam in Luc. cap. 17. page 222.
5. Gerson saith, de Descript. Terminor. Meritum (in genere) est actus laudabilis factus ad bonum alterius, vere, vel Interpretative, vel reputative pro quo exigitur premium: dicitur reputative propter Deum, qui bonorum nostrorum non eget. Et meritum vitae aeternae est actus laudabilis, &c. pro quo Dignificat Deushominemad vitam aeternam. He saith also, Operum part. 3. fol. 329. A Edit▪ Gromorsii, that God hath a Law, quae non liget ad sui observationem: eam quippe deserens poenam non incurrit: Impletio tamen ejus premium meretur & Coronam. Et fol. 3▪ 19. 2. D. he saith that Vita naturae (sine gratia) potest mereri bona temporalia; and that not ex pacto, sed propter quandam adaequationem operum bonorum suorum de genere, ad bonum temporale, & saepe de Congruo ad vitam Gratiae disponit.
6. Melchior Cano Loc. Com. l. 12. pag. (mihi) 430. Duplices sunt operationes nostrae. Quaedam quas nostro nomine reddimus, & que nostrâ Gratiâ Meritisque nituntur ut Eleemosyna & Jejunium.
SECT. IV.
I Will trouble myself and the Reader with no more of this work. Only that all this be not misused to the further alienation of men's minds from each other, then there is just cause, I say again that 1. All the Papists are not to be charged with the opinion of some: Soto and some others deny all merit of Congruity. Scotus, and many more Schoolmen and others, deny all merit of Condignity, save what is ex pacto: (vid. Scot. 1. sent. dist. 17. Q. 2. pag. 108. (Edit. Venet. 1506.) Some of them, as Durand, Ariminensis, &c. deny all proper merit of Condignity, whether ex opere or ex pacto, and differ not from Protestants in this, any further then in the use of the name. Waldensis is so far against the name itself, that (as he is cited by many of our Divines) he saith, He is the most pious Divine and the best Christian, that acknowledgeth no merit at all. And Contarenus and Paulus Burgensis are content to go with him: And the rest of the Papists with Contarenus that held the conference at Ratisbone with our Divines, for Reconciliation, did consent to lay by the very word Merit: and ours consented to forbear to say, we are justified by Faith only, and so we and they did wholly agree in the point of Merit.
2. Yea, I may add that their latter writers, especially the English, do seem more willing to withdraw from the higher sort, and to give less to Merits, then others formerly did. And I can truly say, that of all the Papists that ever I conferred with, I never yet met with two that did not disclaim merit with seeming zeal, and profess to trust in the sole merits of Christ's. Though I confess I am jealous that this Reformation is not general in other Countries, but calculated to the Meridian of England: because the Jesuits and Priests know that the odium of the name of merit, is a great prejudice to their cause, therefore they do not here indue their proselytes so deeply with this Doctrine: However it be, I am glad it is so for the poor people's sake. Their late Christian Moderator, mentioneth some late profession of theirs, wherein they profess that by Merit, they mean nothing but Rewardable: and Rewardableness no Protestant denieth.
Many of them are content to deny the name of merit, to that of Congruity before Conversion. Petrus à Sancto, Joseph in Suavi Concordia, pro scientia Med. Dispute. 1. de Praedest. Sect. 4. pag. 35, 36, &c. saith, Assertio 1. Ex communi omnium Catholicorum Sententia prima Gratia non datur ex meritis naturalibus ipsius praedestinati, sed ex mera Dei liberalitate & miserecordia, q. d. initium Iustificationis non esse ex nobis, sed ex Dei Gratia, &c.
And Franciscus à Sancta clarâ, is so moderate as to say ( pag. 135, 136. li. Deus natura, Grat.) Non omnis promissio Conditionata inducit Titulum Iustitiae Promissario: sicut in Scriptures dum promittitur peccatoribvs Remissio si paenituerint, Collatio Remissionis vel primae gratiae, non est ex justitia, secundum omnes; quia requiritur solum ut dispositio ad illam, non ut opus sufficiens ad fundandum Justitiam. Justitia ergo oritur ex Conditione solum quae exigit quandam condignitatem operis, non solum aliqualem decentiam operis & operantis. And indeed most or all of them disclaim this justice in their merit of Congruity. I would they would say plainly, It is no merit at all: and say the like of their merit of Condignity.
One thing more I would say to prevent misunderstandings, and abuses of others. It will be exceeding necessary for young men, that have not read the Papists themselves, to gather what is their judgment from our most learned, judicious Divines, who knew what they said of them, and were not carried by passion or prejudice to wrong them: and not to take all for cerrain that every hot Preacher speaks of them at random; nor that some less judicious and more passionate writers do affirm: For, to speak freely and truly, many such there are that are better skilled in wounding then healing, in dividing, then doing our common duty against divisions, and in mis-reporting or straining words to the utmost advantage of the enemy of peace.
If you ask me who those writers be that I would commend to such, as dealing most candidly and truly with the Papists in this point, and from whom a young Scholar may credibly take an estimate of their Doctrine: I Answ. Among many others, these seven I would commend to you for this use, as the faithfullest Reporters of the Popish Doctrine of Merit. Davenant, de Instit. Actual. Wotton de Reconcil. Chamier, de Merit. in Paustr. Vossius in Thes. de Meritis bon. operum. Cameron, Prelect. &c. Dr. Field of the Church, and Bishop Usher.
Not that I would disparage any other faithful men; but I will name to young men but few.
And because it will not only show Mr. Crandons and Mr. Eyres unworthy dealing with me, but may be a means to keep the younger Scholars from misapprehensions of the true state of the Controversy herein between the Protestants and the Papists, and so may prevent the guilt of much sin many ways, I will here annex the words of one of these Divines, (faithfully translated, for the use of the English Reader.)
Davenant, (de Instit. actuali cap. 53.) thus opens the state of the Controversy.
What the Adversaries hold concerning this, and what is to be held according to the Rule of Verity, I shall next show. And seeing that on both sides in this Controversy, the Authority of the holy Fathers is wont to be pretended, it will be worth the labor to premise in a few words, what occurreth in them, which may seem to favor either the Adversaries or us: This therefore in the first place must be granted, that the words merit and meriting are frequently used by the Latin Fathers. Hence the Papists, because they often find the word merit in the writings of the Fathers, cry out, that they are all against the Protestants. But they make themselves ridiculous, who in a question about the most weighty point of Faith, do rest on one word, and that evilly wrested besides, yea against the mind of all the Fathers. For with the Fathers, To merit, signifieth nothing else, then To obtain or get some benefit from God, a good work mediating (or being a means thereto). And merit signifieth with them nothing else, then A good work ordinated of God to Reward, ( or to be rewarded). Therefore to merit eternal life, is to do those works which according to God's Ordination are the means of coming to it. If any man will in this sense call the Good Works of the Regenerate merits, to wit, because they are Ordinated of God to the Reward, and shall say, that the Regenerate do merit life eternal, because, walking in the way of God's Commandments, they at last, God rewarding them, obtain the Crown of Eternal Glory, in the manner of speaking he agreeth with the Fathers; and in the thing itself with us, in both he differeth from the Papists.—And if, leaving the Fathers, we descend to the antienter and sounder Schoolmen, we shall find with them also that this word merit doth denote only works grateful and acceptable, and doth not include either any Condignity to the Reward of eternal life, on the part of the Works, nor Debt on God's part, according to Justice, properly so called. Parisiensis in Tract. de Merit. thus writeth, Of this which is commonly said, that some works are meritorious of eternal life, and that by every work done in charity, a man deserveth eternal life, it no way seemeth that by the Condignity of any work, a man can deserve eternal life.
Aquinas, though he grant merit of Condignity in words, 1. 2. q. 114. a. 3. yet indeed he denieth it, when he excludeth from this merit equality of Justice. For he teacheth ib. a. 1. Justice is a certain equality; and therefore simply Justice is between them, who have simply an equality.—But in those, in whom Justice is secundum quid, and not simply, in them also the reason of merit is not simply.—But it is manifest, that between God and man there is the greatest inequality—and therefore there can be no merit of man with God, but upon presupposition of Divine Ordination; that is, so that man may obtain that of God as a Reward, by his own work, to which God did depute to him the virtue of working. From which words I gather, that Aquinas by merit even of Condignity, did mean nothing else, then a work that should obtain the Reward by God's Ordination, without equality of value to the Reward, without Debt of Justice in God to give the Reward. Whence he saith, fine art. ad 3. That our action hath not the nature of merit, but upon presupposition of Divine Ordination, and that God is not made a Debtor simply to us, but to himself; in as much as it is due that his Ordination be fulfilled. Durand, by a meritorious act understandeth nothing else then an act ordinable to Reward, and expressly denieth, that merit of Condignity strictly taken, can be in man to God. To these I may annumerate Scotus, Gregory, Occam, Gabriel, Alfonsus, and very many other Papists of best note, who professedly taught that the Works of the righteous done by the help of Grace, had yet no intrinsical Condignity to eternal life, but as to this Reward, they wholly rested on the gracious acceptance and promise of God. We will not therefore have any Controversy with the Fathers, nor with these sounder Schoolmen, about the bare word merit, ( though it be much better and safer to abstain from this word) but we will contend against the latter Papists, who so defend merit, as that for these works which they call merits, they affirm God himself to be in Justice a Debtor to men, and do make a Condignity or Equality between these merits of man, and the Reward of Eternal glory. So far Davenant.
And if Protestants can so far digest such words of those of Aquinas which I cited, by the help of other explications, as to profess that we differ but in words from him, (who speaketh more harshly then most of the ancient Schoolmen) I leave it then to the enquiry of the learned, and moderate, what the number of the Papists proportionably may be, that we agree with, or differ from in this point: And if Protestants will have no Controversy with Fathers and such Papists about the bare name of merit, I leave it to consideration, with what peaceableness and sobriety Mr. Cr. and Mr. E. did write, and how like to Protestants they dealt, in making me a Papist, who disclaim the very name of merit: yea, in saying, that the worst of Papists maintain no other merit then I do, who deny all▪ properly so called.
Learned Dr. Field in the Appendix to his third Book of the Church, citeth many Papists, as saying the same with us about▪ Justification and Merit▪ and he approveth even of Stapletons Doctrine; and he there tells us, that the Papists and Protestant-Divines at the conference at Ratisbone, fully agreed in the point of Justification, and concluded to repress the very term of merits: cap. 11. & 12. vid. etiam li. 5. Append. part 3. p. 2.
Chamier cites Sotus, Latomus, Gropperus, Andradus, Gregor. de Valentia, Hosius, as speaking against merit of Congruity before Justification: the Council of Trent, as neither affirming nor denying it: and Durand as denying proper merit of Condignity, and Conrad. Chirgius as following Scotus in affirming it, to be only ex pacto.
Chemnitz, Exam. Council. Trident. in qu. 4. de bonis operib. p. 185. (cited also by Davenant ) saith thus, In the Reconciled, Good Works do please God for the Mediator, and have rewards corporal and spiritual in this life, and after this life: but of the free Promise of God, not that God is made our Debtor for the perfection and dignity of our works: And in this sense our (Divines) do not abhor the word merit; as it was used by the Fathers.
See also what is cited out of Bucer and Calvin, in the same place by Davenant, p. 572.
Vossius Thes. de mer. operib. p. 66. saith, We dare not wholly condemn the word (or name of ) meriting, as being used by very many of the ancients, and used by the Reformed Churches in their Confessions, as the Augustine and Wettemberg: yet we think it fitter to speak as the Scriptures, especially when the word merit is ambiguous, and especially in our age, is dangerous in respect of pride.
Mr. Wotton de Reconc. cap. ult. p. 399. 403. brings in many Papists against merit of Congruity (and so against our being by works put into a state of Justification); and taking it to be no merit, but a mere disposition that went before Justification. As Capreol. in 4. d. 14. q. 1. • . 3. Antonius Pathussa. li. de grat. & praedest. c. 6. & de lib. arb. cap. 6. Et Domin▪ Sotus, & Petrus Sotus l • . de Instit. Sacerd. lect. 9. de poenit. Hosius in Confess. Cathol. c. 73. And Suarez saying, d. c. 37. n. 2. Haec est communis sententia Theologorum. And Bellarmine and▪ Vega confessing that it is but a controversy about a word: And p. 400. he saith; Some perhaps will expect that I debate this opinion of the Papists about merit of Congruity: But it seems to me a thing not to be done, because I have made it clear, that it belongs not to the Faith of the Church of Rome, of which alone I hold controversy with the Papists. And showing that the speeches of some particular Papists gave our Divines occasion to dispute this question, he concludes, But for me, I think I ought to be pardoned, if I do knowingly and purposely abstain from that disputation, of which there is no footstep in the Council of Trent, in so long, and so artificially and accurately composed a Definition of Justification.
And thus I have truly shown▪ both in word and deed, how far the Papists go beyond me, in the Doctrine of merit; and yet have given you the Judgment of our most learned Divines, concerning the true state of the Controversy (in part) lest any should be provoked by mistake, to think that we differ further then we do. For my part I am in this matter of the same Judgment as Davenant, and just so far as he, do I differ from them, in the point of merit and Justification by works, if I be able to understand his meaning and mine own: and this I cheerfully and unfeignedly profess: But every angry man that out-goeth him, I cannot accompany.
CHAP. VII. What it is that I mean by Antinomianism: And what I take to be the truth which it opposeth.
THere are yet two parts of my task remaining, which I undertook, in referrence to the offended Antinomians, before I come to the exceptions of the Orthodox. The first is, to acquaint the world what it is that I call Antinomianism: Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. would persuade men that I mean the Protestant Religion, and that an Antinomian and an Anti-Papist with me are all one. Were it but to convict these men of falsehood, I would say nothing to this; it being as needless to impartial men, as to convict a Mahometan of error: But because I would leave no room for unbrotherly jealousies, nor matter of this kind for unconscionable censoriousness to work upon, I will freely declare what are those opinions which I take to belong to the Antinomians, as differing from the Protestants: Though as I know every Antinomian holdeth not them all, so I will not call them Antinomians that hold but some of the lesser and more innocent; (though I think the least be very bad.)
And that what I shall mention are indeed the Antinomists opinions, I appeal to the Reverend Ministers that have conversed with them, especially about London: as also to the writings of Dr. Crisp, Town, Cornwall, Eaton, Den, Saltmarsh, and the rest well known among us: as also to Mr. Welds Rise, Reign, and Ruin of Antinomianism and Familism in New- England: as also to the writings of our Divines against them: especially Mr. Gataker, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Bedford, Mr. Geree, Dr. Taylor.
And that you may see what I hold, as well as what I disclaim, I will give the two extremes in two Columns, and that which I take to be both the Truth and the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, in the middle.
I Have now shown you what I mean by Antinomianism, that Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. may be proved false Accusers, who say, I mean Antipapistry: And I have shown you what I take to be the Truth, that they may not say, that my mind is Popish, while I only accuse other men's opinions, and conceal my own: and I have added the contrary extreme to Antinomianism, least any should run from it, into as bad an error: and that you may see how Christ's Truth is crucified between these two thieves, that would rob him of his Glory, and men of their safety and Peace, while each pretendeth to the only way of Asserting and Vindicating them. I know some of the opinions that I here call Antinomian, are more properly Familism, and are not held by ordinary Antinomians. Yet I annexed them as appertaining to that Sect, both because those of the higher strain, do maintain them, who adjoin some Familism to their Antinomianism; and because their principles so lead towards them, that those seem to be travailing that way, that are not yet come to it. If you would see the Authors cited, that hold these points, without being at so much labor as the reading of their own Books, you may find most of them in the citations in Mr. Rutherfords Book, and Mr. Burgess against the Antinomians. I shall now proceed to the rest of my task▪
CHAP. VIII.
My Reasons why I take, The Justification by Faith, treated of in Scripture, not to be the justification of conscience, or in it: but somewhat antecedent.
SECT. I.
BEcause the great offense that is taken against me, and that hath so exasperated the minds of this sort of men, is my contradicting their Doctrine of Justification; which Doctrine consisteth mainly in these two branches; 1. That the Elect are all Justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ, before they believe: 2. That Justification by Faith, is but in foro conscientiae, or in our own feeling, and terminated in conscience, and not in foro Dei, (further then conscience may be so called.) I shall therefore▪ here give my Reasons to the Church of God, of my contradicting both these: and I will begin with the latter.
The thing that I shall prove is this.
Prop. The Justification by Faith, so called in Scriptures, is not the knowledge or feeling▪ of Justification before given, or a Justification in and by our own consciences, or terminated in conscience, but is somewhat that goes before all such Justification as this is; and is indeed a Justification before God.
You may perceive that all this Proposition cannot in terms be concluded in each Argument which I use: But I will suppose myself to deal with the ingenious, that love truth, more then formalities, and come not to pick quarrels, but to understand my meaning: and therefore it shall suffice me, to conclude that which is equipollent, or which is in sense, the thing in Controversy.
Before I come to Arguments, I must tell you, that the contrary minded are much at a loss among themselves, how to describe their Justification in foro conscienti • , and what to make it, and what name to give it; so that some of them seem to be ashamed of the plain terms and dealing of the most, and though they hold the same thing in substance, yet they endeavor to find new notions for it, and to put a better gloss upon it, then the rude Antinomians were wont to do.
Their common description of Justification by Faith, is, that it is the feeling, assurance, or persuasion of God's love, or of our pardon and former Justification: or actually considered▪ that it is God's Declaration to our consciences, that we are justified; or consciences justifying of us. And therefore they make Faith, which they call the Instrument of it, to be the belief that we are justified, or, as Saltmarsh saith, A persuasion more or less of the Love of God. Mr. Pemble saith, In foro Divino, in God's sight, &c. even while the Elect are unconverted they are then actually justified and freed from all sin by the death of Christ, &c. 2. In foro conscientiae, in our own sense: which is but the Revelation and certain Declaration of God's former secret act of accepting Christ's righteousness to our Justification. Vindic. Grat. p. 21. Dr. Twisse saith Quare si quid morte sua nobis impetrat Christus, quod ad peccatorum nostrorum remissionem attineat sensum istum amoris Divini peccata nostra remittentis nobis impetret necesse est, Vindic. Grat. li. 1. part. 2. §. 25. p. 272, 273. And if it were but the feeling of pardon that Christ himself purchased, it may well be said that it is no higher matter that Faith receiveth. So pag. 279. c. 1. Sed adveniente fide, &c. tum demum agnoscitur & percipitur hic amor Dei erga nos in Christo Jesu. Unde dicitur Justitia Christi imputari nobis per fidem, quia non nisi per fidem dignoscitur à Deo nobis imputari: Et tum demum justificari dicimur ejus generis justification quae pacem ingenerat Conscientiis nostris. Ita pag. 18. b. Nobis vero non nisi per fidem Innotescit. Et li. 2. part. 2. p. 434. Applicantur autem ista per praedicationem Evangelii, non ut de novo fiant, sed ut nobis innotescant. Et cum docet Apostolus nos fide Iustificari, nihil aliud ex instituto docet, quam nos Iustificari per sanguinem Christi, sive propter Christum crucifixum. So also Ludiomaeus Colvinus.
One learned man saith, that, Absolution in heaven, and Justification differ as part and whole; and that Justification is terminated in conscience; and so makes a longer work of Justification, then they that say it is simul & semel; or, then I whom Mr. • r. blames for it: and so that whole begun in eternal Absolution (or from Christ's death) and ended in conscience, should contain • mmanent and Transient acts together; and no small number of our own withal, as there described. Some most learned judicious men affirm, that God setteth up a Tribunal in the soul, and there first arraigneth and condemneth the sinner, and after justifieth him by his own sentence: and this they will not have to be Justification in foro conscientiae, nor done by conscience; but by God, at a certain bar, in the soul, and that is not forum privatum neither, but publicum. To this I argue, that it can be no other then a fiction: for man's soul is capable of no such thing as they describe▪ except by Enthusiasm, or extraordinary Revelation. Whatsoever sentence is revealed to man's soul, the Intellect must be both Passive and Active in it. Yea if it be an Axiom, Thou A. B. art Justified, the Intellect is the Agent to gather this from some premises (from Scripture and consciences evidences); or else it is revealed immediately from heaven, into the soul, as Prophesies were to the Prophets: And of how dangerous consequence it would be, to the comfort of most Christians on earth, to assure them that they are all unjustified, till they are Justified by such a Revelation, is not hard to judge. To this it is replied to me, that God's workings on the soul are secret, and it may be, though we cannot tell how it may be. To which I say▪ No man more willing to accept of such a Reply then I, if the thing were first proved out of Scripture to be so: But to take it for granted, without proof, that Justification by Faith, is such a Sentence in the soul or conscience, whereof the soul or conscience is not the Author or Actor; and then to say, It may be so, though we know not how, is to me unsatisfactory. Reason must veil to God's Revelation, but not to man's unproved suppositions: especially when we have so much to say for the contrary. It is past doubt to me, on consideration of so much as is commonly acknowledged concerning the nature of the souls actions, that there can be no such sentence pronounced in man, but man himself must be the pronouncer (excited by God); or else it must be an Enthusiasm, or immediate Inspiration or Revelation, such as the Prophets had, and man be but the Receiver of it. So that however some by plausible words would put a better face on it, the sense of all seems to be the same, that Justification by Faith is the Revelation of God in and by the conscience, that we are formerly Justified: And so their Justification by Faith, is the same thing that we commonly call the Assurance, or knowledge of our Justification, in some degree at least. I prove the contrary.
SECT. II.
ARgument 1. From Rom. 2. 13. and 3. 20. 28. &c. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be Justified in his sight; Therefore we conclude that a man is Justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law: For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be Justified. Whence I thus argue, Such Justification a • is in Scripture denied to be attainable by the works of the Law, such is that which is affirmed to be by Faith. But it is another Justification, distinct from that in conscience, viz. Justification in the sight of God, which is denied to be attainable by works of the Law. Therefore it is another Justification; viz. in the sight of God, which is affirmed to be by Faith. The major is unquestionable. The minor is plain in the texts cited also. If any say, Justification in conscience, is Justification in the sight of God; I answer, Its true that God seeth when we are Justified in conscience: but In the sight of God, signifieth, In the Estimation or Judgment of God: And if Coram Deo, and Coram Conscientia, may be distinguished, as by them they are, then we may distinguish them also. All Justification in the sight of God, is not Justification in conscience, or in a man's own sight: And where they concur, yet are they formally distinct things, Many are Just before God, that are not yet just in their own sight, or in the knowledge of it.
Argument 2. From Rom. 19. 20. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God: therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be Justified in his sight. If it be guiltiness before God, from which we are Justified by Faith, then it is Justification before God, which is the Justification by Faith. But the Antecedent is plain in the Text, therefore.
Though conscience also shall one day be convinced and witness against them, and therefore the Text saith, that every mouth shall be stopped, yet it is of Guilt before God, that it is convinced; and this being the Terminus à quo of Justification, it must needs follow, that Justification is directly before God, as being the freeing us from guilt before God: Yea in time they are frequently separated: For many a man is guilty before God, long before he stands guilty in the conviction of his own conscience: and so is many a thousand Justified before God, long before they are Justified in their own consciences.
Argument 3. Rom. 3. 22, 24. Even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. To be Justified by Faith, is to have the Righteousness of God to be unto and upon the Believer: But the righteousness of God is unto and upon Believers usually (if not ever) before they are Justified in their own consciences, therefore. This seems all clearer then to need any further confirmation.
Argument 4. Rom. 3. 23, 24. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being Justified freely by his Grace, &c. that is, All them that believe, as the foregoing words express. The Justification which is by Faith, is opposed to coming short of the glory of God: The Justification in sense, is opposed to the sense of our coming short of the glory of God: therefore the Justification by Faith is not the same with the Justification in sense (or conscience.) This needs no further confirmation.
Argument 5. Rom. 3. 25, 26. and 4. 7, 8. Justification by Faith, is the same thing (or at least, of the same nature of action) with forgiveness of sin, covering sin, and not imputing sin by the Lord: But these are distinct things, and separable from Justification in sense or conscience, therefore. Many a man's iniquities are forgiven that knows it not; and are covered as to God, that are bare as to themselves. God imputeth not every man's sin to him, that is unacquainted with God's non-imputation. Those whom I dispute against, do commonly grant that this non-imputation of sin is not the same thing with Justification in conscience: But it is the same thing with Justification by Faith, as is put past all doubt in the Text; therefore Justification by Faith, and in sense or conscience are not all one.
Argument 6. From Rom. 4. 3. 5. 6. 9. 11. 22, 23, 24. Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for Righteousness: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without Works. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness: Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him: But for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. So Gal. 3. 6. and I am. 2. 23.
From all these I thus argue: Justification by Faith is the same thing with God's Imputing righteousness to us, or imputing Faith for righteousness: Justification in sense or conscience, is not the same thing with God's imputing righteousness, or Faith for righteousness: therefore Justification by Faith is not the same thing with Justification in sense or conscience.
The Major is as true as God's Word. The Minor is yielded by those that I dispute against, commonly. They suppose that God's Imputing righteousness to us, is at Christ's death, or before we believe: though the Scripture expressly contradict them. Nay hence I may further argue thus.
Argument 7. From the forecited Texts. If Justifying Faith be not the Believing that we are already Justified or the knowledge or feeling of our Justification or pardon, then Justification by that Faith is not Justification in sense or conscience: But the former is true: therefore so is the latter.
I prove the Antecedent thus; Believing, or knowing, or feeling that we are Justified or pardoned, doth follow Justification or pardon: Justifying Faith doth not follow, but go before Justification and pardon; therefore believing that we are justified, is not Justifying Faith.
If they say, It goeth before Justification by Faith, but followeth Justification from eternity, or at Christ's death; I answer, Scripture mentioneth no such thing as the latter, which they say, it followeth: However it must be confessed that it is not this Justification which the Apostle speaks of in all this discourse; Rom. 3. and 4. which goeth before Faith. For 1. Else it could not be a Justification by Faith; 2. Faith itself is imputed for righteousness in that Justification which is by Faith: But Faith must exist before it can be imputed for righteousness. And further consider, the Faith which they describe doth not exist, before Faith is imputed to us for righteousness: Faith is imputed for righteousness before a man doth believe that he is already Justified: therefore Justification by Faith goeth before their Justification in conscience.
If any say, that it is not Faith itself, but Christ that is imputed for righteousness: I answer, 1. In some sense Faith itself is imputed, else the Apostle would never say it, and say it so oft as he doth: and we are not now on a discussion of the sense▪ but in what sense soever it be, Faith must exist before it be imputed as the Apostle saith it is. 2. Mr. Gataker against Sal • marsh hath shown, that they that say, Faith is imputed, and they that say Christ's righteousness is imputed, and not properly Faith, do not differ in sense, but in the fitness of a phrase: and he shows it is fit to say either; see the words in him. 3. It is as plain in the Apostles words, as the tongue of man can speak it, that it is Faith that is imputed for righteousness, and not only Christ believed in. Which I undertake to make clear on any fit occasion, to any man that is truly willing to know the Truth, and of competent capacity in such matters. In the mean time, see but what Mr. Wotton de Reconcil. hath said, and John Goodwin of Justification, and see how Mr. Wotton on John, pag. 453. clears it from Rom. 2. 26. and 9. 8. Where the word imputing is also used, and where you may clearly see how it is used by the Holy-Ghost.
Argument 8. From Rom. 4. 4, 5. Justification by Faith is a Reckoning the Reward to a man of Grace: Justification in conscience is not a reckoni • g of the reward to him; therefore Justification by Faith is not the same as Justification in conscience. To reckon the Reward to him, is to adjudge it to him, or to judge him to have a Right in it, or to give him that Right in it, of mere Grace, and not to give him the knowledge or sense of his former Right.
Argument 9. From. Rom. 4. 13, 14. Justification by Faith, is the same thing as making us heirs by Promise, through the righteousness of Faith. But to be made an heir by Promise, through the righteousness of Faith, is not the same thing as to know, feel, or believe that we are justified, or to be justified in conscience: therefore.
Many a man is made an heir, that is not certain of it, nor believeth it: and if he did believe it, yet to be made an heir is one thing, and to feel or believe it is another. The Promise also doth first convey Right to us, and that it may do long before we apprehend that we are the persons that have that Right.
Argument 10. From Rom. 5. 1, 2. Justification by Faith goeth before our having Peace with God, and our having access into the Grace wherein we stand; Justification in conscience doth not go before our having Peace with God, and access to that Grace wherein we stand: therefore Justification by Faith is not the same as Justification in conscience.
Argument 11. Rom. 5. 16. The free gift is of many offenses unto Justification; The Justification that Paul treats of, is the free gift of Remission of many offenses: but this goeth before Justification in conscience: therefore the Justification that Paul treats of, goeth before Justification in conscience: God's gift of Remission must go before the knowledge or belief of it.
Argument 12. Rom. 5. 17. Much more they which receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of Righteousness, shall reign, &c. The Justification by Faith, and which Paul treats of, is the gift of Righteousness: Justification in conscience is not the gift of righteousness, but the knowledge or sense that righteousness is given us: therefore.
Here you have the true nature of Justification by Faith. It is God's giving us righteousness (Remission of sin through Christ's blood), on our believing. To give righteousness goes before giving knowledge of it, or comfort in it.
Argument 13. From Rom. 5. 18. Therefore as by the offense of one, Judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to Justification of life. The Justification which Paul means, and is by Faith, is the Justification of life, and opposed to condemnation by God's Judgment. Justification in sense or conscience is not so, but follows it: therefore they are not the same.
By Justification of life, is meant the giving or adjudging of life to us: But assurance or knowledge that it is given us, follows the gift, and is not properly the Justification of life, but the Justification of comfort.
Argument 14. From Rom. 5. 19. For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous: Hence I thus argue.
Justification in Paul's sense, and which is by Faith, is a making men righteous: Justification in feeling or conscience, is not a making men righteous, but followeth it; therefore. Justification in Paul's sense, and which is by Faith, is not the same with Justification in feeling or conscience.
The Major is in the text, and context: The Minor is acknowledged by them that I dispute against. To declare to a man that he is righteous, is not to make him righteous, but followeth it; If it be a true Declaration, the thing must be true in order before it be Declared true. By making righteous, I do not mean (nor doth the text) as the Papists do, a making us conformable to the Moral Law of God, by sanctification; nor yet the giving us the virtue of particular Justice, whereby we give every man his own; but the Text by making us righteous, means, making us not guilty of death, which is done by remitting our guilt, the Condition of Remission (Faith) being first given us.
From this text and some of the rest before cited, I commend to the Readers consideration, whether it be not evident that constitutive Justification, or making us righteous, be not that first Justification by Faith, which Scripture mentioneth? And hereby, 1. I would convince those of a mistake, that so precisely tie the word Justification to signify a sentence of Judgment, that they affirm that this is the Justification, yea the only Justification by Faith, that the Scripture mentioneth? Whereas it is a making us righteous that Paul means, which is done by the Promise, or Legal Donation or Condonation, and goes before the Sentence; and may itself be well called Sententia Legis, and that far better then we may so speak of the Laws of men (as I could show by clear reason;) and it is Virtually the Sentence of God as Judge (at least.) I confess that Justification most strictly signifieth the Judicial Sentence: But it is plain that in Paul's Epistles it signifieth more frequently the Sentence of the New Law.
2. Let the Reader here judge, whether Mr. Crandons reviling me as a deluding Papist, for distinguishing between Constitutive and Sentential Justification, as having no ground in Scripture▪ did more credit the Papists, or himself, and were any wiser and honester then the rest of his book? 1 I might have disti • guished between things of so known, palpable difference as Just • ficat • o Ju 〈…〉 , and just • ficatio Judicis, though the Scripture had said nothing of it▪ because it supposeth the matters of common Reason and natural verity. 2. But yet he may easily see both branches of the Distinction in many texts of Scripture, and particularly Constitutive Justification is in this, if making or Constituting righteous be Justifying, as the terms, and the foregoing 18. verse do show that it is. Here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And he that hateth and curseth every man that saith to the wicked Thou art righteous, and that Justifieth the wicked; will undoubtedly make a man righteous before he sentence or declare him righteous.
And for the other branch of the distinction, if I must prove that there is such a thing as Justification by sentence in judgment (that is, that there is a Judgment and a Sentence,) and it be not enough to prove that we shall be judged by Christ, who shall come to Judge the quick and the dead; to omit many more, I only now refer such a man to Math. 12. 36, 37. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned; viz. in that day of Judgment.
Argument 15. From Rom. 8. 1, 2. The Justification which Paul treats of, freeth us from the Law of sin and death, Justification in feeling or conscience, freeth us but from the Accusation of conscience, and inward disquiet of mind; therefore.
It will prove a dangerous Doctrine, to teach that God doth make internal Declarations the Instrument of conveying right to his favors, or the foundation of our Right, and so lead men from that sure Word which is the Instrument and foundation. The obligation of the Law which is dissolved by Justification, is an Act of Law, whether we feel it or not; and not an act of conscience, nor always there felt: therefore it must be an act of Law, that must dissolve that obligation (to punishment) and not an act of conscience, nor an act upon conscience, as such. But of this more anon.
Argument 16. From Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he also Justified, and whom he Justified, them he also Glorified. The Justification that Paul speaks of, and is by Faith, belongeth to all the called: The Justification in feeling or in conscience, belongs not to all the called: therefore they are not one kind of Justification. I shall say more to this also anon.
Argument 17. From Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect? it is God that Iustifieth; Who is he that condemneth? The Justification that Paul speaks of, is opposed to man's Accusation, as that which it freeth us from, as to the effect of it: But so is not the Justification in feeling or conscience; therefore they are not all one.
It is not in our Consciences that men Accuse us: they have no Access thereto: they lay no charge there against us.
Argument 18. From the same place. The Justification that Paul treats of, is opposed to condemnation by any man whomsoever: But so is not Justification in conscience; therefore they are not the same.
Argument 19. From Rom. 11. 30. The Gentiles which followed not after Righteousness, have attained to Righteousness, even the Righteousness which is of Faith. The Justification which Paul treats of, is attaining to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Justification in foro Conscientiae is not an attaining to Righteousness, but to the knowledge or apprehension that we are righteous: therefore they are not the same Justification.
Argument 20. From Rom. 10. 4, 10. For Christ is the end of the Law, for righteousness, to everyone that Believeth. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The Justification that Paul speaks of, is a becoming righteous upon our believing, Christ being then our Righteousness: Justification in conscience is not so, but a knowledge or sense of it: therefore they are not the same.
Argument 21. From Gal. 2. 16. and 21. compared. The Justification which Paul treats of, and is by Faith, 〈◊◊〉 coming of righteousness by Christ; as opposite to the coming of righteousness by the Law, (to the person so justified): But so is not Justification in conscience: therefore, &c.
Argument 22. From Gal. 3. 8, 9. All that have the blessing Promised to Abraham, and the faithful with him, are justified in Paul's sense, and by Faith. All that have that blessing are not Justified in foro Conscientiae: therefore they are separable, and oft separated, and not the same. If all that are not • ustified in conscience or feeling, are not blessed with Abraham, (that is, are not heirs of the promised Kingdom,) and his seed, then woe to thousands of poor distressed Christians, whom by their lives, we have taken hitherto for sincere.
Argument 23. From Gal. 3. 11. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by Faith. Justification by Faith, and in Paul's sense, is the life of the just, and is in the sight of God: Justification in foro Conscientiae, is not such, but followeth it; therefore they are not the same.
Argument 24. From Gal. 3. 21, 22. Is the Law then against the Promises of God? God forbid? For if there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. From these words I may raise divers Arguments, One is from the Instrument, and foundation of the Relation, the Law; the Promise. Justification in Paul's sense, and by Faith, is such as the Promise doth give, and the Law would have given, if it could have given Life. Justification in foro Conscientiae is not this, but a consequent of it: therefore.
For the Major, that the Text speaks of Justification, is evident in those words, R • ghteousness should have been by the Law. For the Minor, it is confessed by the most learned of mine Antagonists, whose main plea is, th • t justification is only the Sentence of the Judge, and not of the Law or Promise. And in the thing itself it is evident, in that to assure the conscience, is a separable effect▪ that always follows not the Law or Promise: but to convey Legal right to the benefit conferred, is an inseparable effect, as soon as the Promise acteth and is effectual. This shows also that Justific • tio Juris, is true Justification.
Argument 25. From the same words I argue thus. Justification in Paul's sense, and by Faith, is either the giving of life, or an act of the same nature: Justification in conscience is not so, but is the giving of Assurance, knowledge or sense that life is before given us: therefore they be not all one.
Argument 26. From the same words I argue thus. Justification in Paul's sense, and by Faith, is opposite to the concluding men under sin: Justification in conscience is not so, but is opposite to the knowledge or sense of our being concluded under sin, or to the concluding ourselves under sin; and not to God's concluding them under it by Law: therefore they are not all one.
Argument 27. From Gal. 3. 24, 26. To bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith: For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus: Justification by faith, and in Paul's sense is the same, or of the same sort as to the act▪ as is the mak • ng us the children of God. But so is not Justification in conscience, but is as the sense or assurance that we are already the children of God: therefore, &c.
Argument 28. Titus 3. 7. Gal. 3. 24. and 4. 5, 7. Justification in P • uls sense is of the same kind of action, as the making us heirs according to promise, or goes before it. Justification in conscience, is not so, but follows it, being the Declaring to ourselves that we are already heirs according to Promise: therefore they are not the same.
Argument 29. From Gal. 4. 6. and Rom 8. 16. Because ye are Sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirits, that we are the children of God; God's witness in our hearts that we are justified and are his children, (which is the thing which they call • ustifying us in foro Conscientiae ) is given to us, because we are first his children; and therefore after we are his children, and therefore after we are Justified; and therefore is not the same with Justification, in Paul's sense, and by faith, (for it is by faith that we are made the children of God; Gal. 3. 26.)
Argument 30. Gal. 5. 4. Christ is of no effect to you; whoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. The continuance in Justification in Paul's sense, and by faith, is opposite to Christ being of none effect to us; and falling from Grace; that is, God's favor: The continuance in Justification in foro Conscientiae is not so, but is opposite to Christ not affording us the knowledge of his efficacy to us; and to falling from the sense or knowledge of Grace: therefore they are divers.
Argument 31. From Ephes. 1. 6, 7. To the praise of the glory of his Grace, wherein he hath accepted us, in the beloved, in whom we have Redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, &c. Justification in Paul's sense, is the same with Acceptance in the beloved, and Remission of sins. Justification in conscience, is not so, but is the Declaration of that Acceptance and Remission; therefore they are divers.
Argument 32. From Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ; the righteousness which is of God by Faith. Doubtless this is a description of a state of Justification. The Justification that Paul treats of, and is by Faith, is that which followeth, being found in Christ, and consisteth in not having a righteousness of the Law of our own, but having the righteousness, which is of Christ by Faith. The Justification in conscience is not such; but is our knowledge that we are in Christ, and have his righteousness, which is by Faith: therefore.
Argument 33. From I am. 2. Justification in James his sense, was such as salvation depended on, verse. 14. and as consisted in God's Imputation, verse. 23. Justification in conscience, is not so, but is only the Declaration of this to ourselves; therefore they are not the same.
Argument 34. From John 1. 11, 12. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name. Adoption, which is an act of the same nature with Justification, and concomitant, if not part of it, doth not consist in a Declaration to our consciences that we are sons; but in giving power, or Authority to become sons: (which is by the Promise or Law of Grace, and not by sentence internal or eternal:) therefore Justification in Christ's sense here, and which is by Faith, consisteth not in a Declaration to our consciences, that we are righteous, but in giving us power, Privilege, or Authority to become righteous. The Reason is the same.
Argument 35. From John. 3. 18. The Justification by Faith is described as consisting in Not being condemned, opposite to being condemned already, because he believeth not, &c. which must needs be a condemnation in Law, and not in conscience, for every such a one is not then so condemned already, nor is every Believer not-Condemned by his own Conscience.
Argument 36. A most effectual Argument may be drawn from 1 Cor. 4. 3, 4, 5. Where Paul saith, he is not Justified, because he is conscious of nothing to himself, and slighteth man's Judgment, and opposeth both to God's, which will not be perfected till the time of his Judgment Come. I had rather desire the Reader to study the Text well, then say anymore from it.
A multitude more of Scripture Arguments might be produced, but I have been numerous enough already. I shall add some from the nature of the thing, and the Analogy of Faith.
SECT. III.
ARgument 1. If there be a Justification by Faith in point of Law or Right, that ever goes before Justification in foro Conscientiae, then it is not • ustification in foro Conscientiae that is the Justification by Faith which the Scripture treats of. But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent.
The Consequence of the Major is proved thus: The Justification by Faith, which Scripture treats of, (at least commonly, if not ever, as I suppose, when it excludeth all works) is the first Justification by Faith, or of the same sort, and not any following sort, overpassing the first: therefore the Consequence is good. I know but one man, if any, that denieth this; or that affirmeth it is only a second Justification of a different sort from the first, that Scripture meaneth by Justification by Faith: nor is there any probability that our first Justification by Faith should be silenced and passed over, and a second (of a far lower nature) only, or usually mentioned, without it! When I know any to dispute against, I shall easily prove what in this I assert.
And for the Antecedent (that there is a Justification by Faith in point of Law or Right, before that of conscience) I prove it thus: No man is by God, or a well informed conscience, declared to be pe • sonally, actually just, before he be personally actually just indeed: But no man is personally actually just indeed but by Faith: therefore.
The Major is plain, in that God and a well informed conscience declare nothing but the truth: But if they should declare him to be personally actually just, that is not so, they should declare an untruth: therefore.
I say personally and actually just; because it is not righteousness as it is in Christ only▪ not made ours, nor our persons thereby yet righteous, that can justify us, that have it not in Right: 2. Because it is not a righteousness merely potential, or in Causa, that • an justify us actually.
And for the Minor, that none is so just but by Faith, almost all the Scriptures forecited prove, with many more: Without Faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11. 6. The just shall live by Faith. It is the righteousness which is by faith; and faith that is imputed for righteousness, &c. Here the common subterfuge, is by bringing in the case of Infants, which have not Faith. To which I still say, 1. That our discourse is supposed, and to be of the aged, and the case of infants obscure: and so is the Scripture itself to be understood, unless you will say, all dying in Infancy are damned. 2. Infants are righteous by Christ upon their Parents Believing.
The ordinary opposers have nothing that I know of against all this that I have said; but two learned men that have more wit then the rest, have each of them an objection. The first saith, that the first Justification by Faith is indeed by the moral Act of the Law of Grace or Promise, but it is nevertheless terminated in conscience; for it is conscience which the Promise speaks to and assures. To which I say, as I did before: The act of the Promise, Law or Grant, constituting Right, Giving Title, Remitting the Obligation to Punishment, in itself is totally distinct from the act of declaring this to ourselves which is said to be terminated in conscience, and is before it, and may be without it. A man may by the Princes Grant, be made free, or noble, before he know it; and so may a Traitor be actually pardoned before he know it, seeing the Princes pardon doth remit the Guilt, and Constitute a Right to Impunity, before it notify this to the offender, at least in order of nature, if not of time.
The other objecteth, that its undeniable that men are Constituted Just, or pardoned by the Covenant or Promise, before they are Justified in conscience: but it is not the former, but the latter▪ that is called in Scripture, Justification, seeing Justification is ever sententia Iudicis, and not Legis. To which I Reply.
1. I have fully proved the contrary before.
2. God's Laws are such, that in some of them may be said Iudicis partes agere in some measure, as well as Leg • slatoris: much execution being done without any other intervening sentence then that in the Law; and God having so exactly fitted his Law to men's cases, and described the case in the Law, that Judgment is less necessary in those cases, especially where himself is the unerring Executioner, he may slay them if he take them in the fact.
3. Sententia Legis, is a common phrase, and though not so proper as Sententia Iudicis, yet here it is not unfit.
4. What means the Scripture to talk so much of Justification by the Law, and to yield that the Law would Justify us, could it have given life, or were it not weak through the Flesh? And Justification by Christ and the Promise, is opposed to Justification by the Law: It is plain therefore, that its primarily of • ustification in Law sense or Right that Paul treateth, and secondarily or consequentially of Justification, by sentence at Judgment, (which is also oft mentioned directly;) but never that I can find doth he once call that Justification, which is but the Declaration of our righteousness, to or by our consciences.
5. At the utmost, all is granted us by this objection, save the name. For it is confessed that we are by Faith made righteous, (by Christ's satisfaction, and Merit, as the deserving Cause, and by Remission of sin as the thing) before we are justified in conscience: And to say we are made righteous, but not justified, is to be more or less accurate then Scripture, or then Grammarians are: Though we confess that there is a sentential Justification, after making righteous. I would not therefore make anymore debate about the name Justification, when the thing is granted, were it not that by this advantage, the Erroneous will interpret all the texts that use the word Justification, of Justification in conscience only, to the no small wrong of the Scripture, themselves and others. I must be shorter in the next.
Argument 2. In the Justification in conscience, man justifieth himself, or is the true efficient cause of that his Justification. In the Justification by Faith, which Paul treats of, man doth not justify himself, nor is any true efficient cause of it: therefore they are not the same kind of Justification.
The Major is undeniable, at least, if it be not an Enthusiasm, which they speak of, such as the Prophets Revelations were: such an act as knowledge is, such is conscience. Omne Conscire, est scire. If it were proved that Intelligere est tantum pati & non agere, and so that the Intellect were a mere patient in receiving its part, yet Intellection is but an Introductive act or passion: that is more fully said to be done to or on the man, which reacheth the heart: and in that the Intellect must be Active, or else the order of the natural operation of man's soul must be subverted▪ If the Will or Affections be moved by supernatural Truths or Matters, and not by the action and meditation of the intellect, it will not be actus bumanus, not a rational act. But Justification by Faith is not such, I think.
Argument 3. Justification in conscience, or in any Declaration to the soul, is of divers Degrees, at first: (for ought I know as different as there be persons;) one justified more, and another less: Justification by Faith in Paul • sense, is in all men at their first believing, in the same measure: therefore they are not the same Justification.
The Major is undoubted; 1. From Christian experience: 2. From the nature of the thing, and quality of our faculties, which God makes use of in that sort of Justification. So that it is as needless to prove it further, as to prove that one man knows more then another, or that one man lives more comfortably then another, or hath more assurance.
The Minor is commonly granted by Protestants. Our justification at our first believing, is in the Remission of sins past: and all men's sins are equally remitted; all men have equal right to impunity, and equal right to glory. The conclusion therefore must needs follow.
Argument 4. Justification in conscience may rise and fall in degrees every day in the same persons: Justification by faith in Scripture sense, doth not so: therefore they are not the same.
The Major needs no proof, but consulting the common experience of ourselves and others. What man hath the same knowledge and feeling of God's Love, or the pardon of sin, one time as at another: yea or long together? To whose soul doth God declare Remission of sins, every day, and at all times alike?
The Minor is commonly acknowledged by those that I dispute against: Only some may question whether I hold it myself; which I have spoke enough to before. Justification by Faith in Scripture sense may be said to be increased as to the addition of new sins remitted, which were not remitted before; or as to the degree of Castigatory punishment remitted: but not as to the nature of the act of Remission, nor as to the right to eternal life (though Justification by sentence be yet of a higher kind:) But Justification in conscience, is increased in the very nature of the thing: And as it may rise, so may it fall again▪ many times a day. But Justification by faith, is not changed according to every change in our apprehensions.
Argument 5. A man is not actually justified in conscience, when he is a sleep, or wholly taken up with other thoughts (and then I doubt most of us, live unjustified the far greater part of our lives:) But a man is justified by faith, when he is a sleep, and wholly taken up with other thoughts: therefore these are not one sort of Justification.
Argument 6▪ Justification in consc • ence is frequently lost and repaired again: Justification by saith, in Scripture sense, is not frequently (nor at all) lost and repaired again: therefore they are not the same sort of Justification. The Major is proved by the common experience of Christians; who sometime (at least many) do quite lose all Apprehensions of the pardon of their own sin▪ and of God's special love to them: The Minor is commonly maintained by our Divines against the Arminians, Lutherans and Papists (save only that Davenant, and some others, and it seems the Sinod of Dort, excepted infant Justification from being not-loseable) But we speak of that of actual Believers.
Argument 7. Justification in conscience is not enjoyed by every true Believer. Justification by Faith is enjoyed by every true Believer: Therefore they are not the same. For the Major, I appeal to experience: The Minor is past question.
Only I must answer one great objection against the Major, which may be made. Obj. Whoever believeth, taketh Christ for his Savior, and Believeth the Promise of Pardon and salvation: and therefore he must needs believe that Christ is his Savior, and consequently his Justifier: and that there is a Promise of his pardon and salvation. Answ. Whoever believeth to Justification, believeth that Christ is the Savior, having made himself a sacrifice for sin▪ and received power to pardon: also that God offereth Christ to him as well as others: and also that there is a Promise of salvation made through Christ to all that will believe sincerely, and therefore to him, if he so believe: He also consenteth unfeignedly that Christ should be his Lord and Savior on the terms that he is offered on. And he that goes thus far, believeth to Justification. But this same man that doth thus believe, may be ignorant that he doth believe sincerel • : Either not knowing the nature of saving Faith, as dist •• ct from common Faith but thinking a common Faith may go further then it can: Or else not knowing his own heart, or misjudg • ng of what he doth through fear and temptations: and so he 〈◊〉 conclude he is an hypocrite, or unbeliever, as having but a temporary faith, and not a saving faith: and thence he may conclu • e▪ that though Christ be offered, yet he doth not sincerel • accept him, • n • though there be a Promise of pardon and life to 〈…〉 e Believe •• it is not effectual to him who is none. I co •• lude therefore, that ev • ry true • eliever is not Justified in conscience: Some may be condemned by a misinformed conscience: What more common then the sad experience of such Cases?
Argument 8. Justification in Conscience, is a thing that a true Believer may not only live without, but die without: Justification by faith is no such thing: therefore they are not the same: 1. Experience tells us of Godly people that have died without the former ( immo qui nece violenta s • ipsos perdiderunt ): 2. God hath nowhere promised that a Believer shall not die till he attain Justification in Conscience: or if he lose it, that he shall not die till he have recovered it. At least I may thus argue.
Argument 9. Justification in conscience doth not evermore immediately and inseparably accompany Justifying, or true saving faith: Justification by faith doth evermore immediately and inseparably accompany such a faith: therefore they are not the same.
Argument 10. No Infants are Justified in conscience; All the Infants of Believers that are in a state of salvation, have that Justification which is by faith; therefore they are not the same.
To prove the Major, there needs no more then to prove that they have not the use of reason; for if they do not scire, they do not conscire.
The Minor is proved thus; 1. It is the same Promise that is made to Believers, and to their seed, as the seed of Believers; and the faith of the Parent, is the Condition of that Promise; therefore the Infant is so Justified by Promise, upon the Parents believing, as well as the Parent himself is. I refer you for this, to what I have said in my Book of Baptism.
2. Infants stand accused and condemned by a Law; therefore they must be discharged and justified by a Law, or Promise as well as others.
3. If Infants have no Promise of pardon, then what differ they from the Infants of Heathens.
4. And if there be no Promise of their pardon, who can tell that any of them ever are pardoned.
5. Or who can Baptize them for Remission of sin. All this I say, as to them that say, infants and all the Elect are justified in Christ when he satisfied; and this may save them that are not capable of Believing. But to what is said, I further answer.
6. No man hath an actual right in Christ, or actual Remission or Justification, upon the mere payment and acceptance of the ransom, without a further means of conveyance; No word of God gives any such Right. Let them prove it, that affirm it.
7. Infants have no other kind of Right to Christ, then the aged have, upon the mere payment of the price, before a further conveyance. But the aged are not in a state of Justification or salvation by it before further conveyance: therefore Infants are not.
8. Else according to this Doctrine, why may we not say that Heathen Indians are saved by Christ, as well as Christians. Infants? For they are not called to believe in Christ anymore then Infants: And either Infants of Believers have some Promise of pardon, more then the Heathens that never heard the Gospel, or they have not: If they have no more Promise, then we must say alike of them, that either both may be Elect, and so Justified in Christ without Faith or Promise; or that neither are Elect, justified or saved. If there be a Promise to our Infants of pardon, more then to those Pagans; then I have what I seek: viz. That Infants have a Justification in Law or by Promise, distinct from that in conscience, and from the benefit which flows from Christ's death, merely as a price paid and accepted, without a further Conveyance of a special Right, which all have not.
Argument 11. Justification in conscience, is but a Declaration or knowledge that we were actually justified (or made righteous) before. Justification by Faith in Scripture-sense is not so, but the making us first actually righteous: therefore they are divers.
Argument 12. Justification in conscience freeth us but from the Accusation, Condemnation, and Consequent terrors of conscience, and not from the effect of Satan's, and the Laws Accusations before God, nor from God's Condemnation. Justification by Faith, in the Scripture sense, freeth us from these latter, and not always from the former: therefore they are not the same. Our salvation depends on our Justification by Faith in Law, or before God (as many Scripture show): but our salvation doth not depend on the knowledge of this, and of Justification in conscience. It is only our comfort that dependeth on that Our peace with God is the attendant of one, and our peace of conscience of the other. Justification in conscience (commonly, and more fitly called Assurance, or some degree of the knowledge of pardon) is a great mercy, and highly to be valued. But compared to our Justification by Faith in Right and before God, it is small and inconsiderable: differing from it as much as a man's present comfort differs from his safety and eternal salvation. He that liveth sadly here, may die well and live happily hereafter.
Or take the Argument thus. Justification in conscience dissolveth not the Laws obligation to punishment: Justification, or pardon of sin in Law-sense by Faith, doth dissolve the Laws obligation to punishment: therefore they are not the same.
Argument 13. Justification by conscience is by a fallible and unauthorised Judge (as to any certain decision): Justification by Faith is, by God the supreme, rightful, infallible Judge; therefore they are divers. I know nothing by myself saith Paul, yet am not thereby justified: there is one that Judgeth, even the Lord: Hereby he expresseth that conscience hath not authority of Decision for life and death, but of Discretion for comfort or discomfort.
Argument 14. Men may be justified in conscience by other Graces as well as by Faith, and in the same kind and rank, Coordinate with it, if not without any consideration of it. (for he that can find Love, Hope, true Humility, &c. may receive the knowledge of God's Love by them by way of evidence, as well as by Faith) But Justification by Faith is in a special and principal manner by Faith; therefore, &c.
If any say, I equal them myself. I Answ. 1. I have shown before that I do not. 2. If I did, yet the Argument is good ad hominem, in that I plead upon their principles with whom I deal. Obj. But it is not objectively by way of evidence only that Faith justifieth in conscience, but it is effectively ex natura actus, because Justifying Faith is a Believing that I am just in Christ. Answ. Then either you were so before, or not. If not, you believe a falsehood. If you were, either by Fa • th, or without. Not without! For without Faith it is impossib • e to please God: and it is by Faith that we are justified: being till then •• l concluded under sin: If by Faith, then you were justified by Faith, before that Justification by Faith which you plead for. Furthermore, your belief that you are justified in Christ, is either such an act as all ought to perform, or not: If it be, then either most must believe an untruth, or else it is only some common Justification that you mean, which all are partakers of: but that is not it in question now. If not, then either you have some ground more then others in God's Word, for to bottom your Faith of particular Justification in Christ upon, or not: If you have, either that Scripture nameth you (which it doth not) or it describeth you as a qualified person distinct from others by some qualification by which you may know yourself. But this it doth not: and to assert such qualifications before Faith, to which Justification is annexed, is Pelagianism, or worse. If you have no grounds in God's Word to bottom your particular belief on, which all have not, then 1. Your particular belief is confessed not to be grounded on the Word, and then I had rather it were yours, then mine: at least, I durst not trust to it. 2. Then it must have the very nature of an Immediate Euthusiasm or Revelation from Heaven: and if you say, you have such, I will not deny it; but if you say; All the justified by Faith have such, I shall not believe you in the least, without better proof.
Argument 15. If Justification by Faith, be Justification in conscience, then Justification is a part of Sanctification (which is the work of the Spirit making a Real change on the soul.) But Justification by Faith is not a part of Sanctification. Therefore it is not Justification in conscience.
The Minor is undenyed. The consequence of the Major is proved from the description of them both: Sanctification is the Real mutation on the Intellect and Will; on the Intellect, it is Illumination, acquainting us with Divine verities; On the Will, it is the entertainment of these as good, &c. Justification in conscience, is God's illuminating our understandings to see the Truth of our Condition, that we are righteous; and the affecting the heart to Rejoice herein; both are a real change, and an illumination, whereas Protestants have taken Justification hitherto to be a Relative change, and distinguished it from Sanctification, and that in this respect. (Though executive Remission be a Real change.)
Argument 16. If the Faith whereby we are justified in Scripture sense, be not the same act of Faith, with that whereby we are supposed to be justified in conscience, then the Justifications are not the same: But the Antecedent is true; therefore so is the Consequent.
The Antecedent (which only requireth proof) is proved by the description of each of them. The Faith whereby they feign that we are Justified in conscience, is, say they, a particular belief that my own sins are pardoned; or that I am justified, or righteous in Christ's righteousness, or that I am Elect: Or a persuasion of this; or an Assurance of it. The Faith whereby we are Justified in Scripture-sense, is a believing the Gospel, and that Christ is the Messiah, and an accepting of him as he is offered in the Gospel: It is a receiving of Christ Jesus the Lord: As many as received him, to them he gives this power; Joh. 1. 12. Or it is a believing in or on Christ for Justification and pardon, and not a believing that we are pardoned already. The conclusion therefore cannot be avoided.
Argument 17. If Justification by Faith, be that in conscience, and such as the most learned maintainers of it affirm (that is, an immediate supernatural Declaration of God to the soul, that it is absolved, without our own discourse to collcct it by way of Conclusion from other Premises) then the duty of Examination, to try whether we be in the Faith, and whether Christ be in us, seems vain: But the Consequent is unsound: therefore so is the Antecedent. The reason of the Consequence is here, where God immediately by supernatural Revelation declareth to a man that he is justified, there is no use for his own reasonings and collection thereto: No more then of a Candle at noon: for God's immediate Declaration is the fullest testimony: especially if it be so convincing and deciding as the maintainers do affirm it. But all that are Justified by Faith, according to them, have these Demonstrations, or Declarations from heaven: therefore to all believers do they make examination useless: which yet the Scripture doth command.
Argument 18. If God justify all Believers by such an immediate Revelation or Declaration to conscience (or any the like) then Justification may be felt, and discerned in se, as sanctification may, and not only in and by its signs, causes, effects, concomitants▪ But the contrary hath hitherto been the Doctrine of Protestants, who have taught that election and Justification cannot be discerned in themselves but only by the signs, as sanctification, &c.
Argument 19. That Doctrine is not true, which contradicteth the experience of the Generality of the Godly, in a case wherein their experience is fit for decision. But this Doctrine (of the most learned of that way) that Justification by Faith, is such an immediate Declaration to the conscience or soul, without the use of man's reasoning to collect it, is contradictory to the experience of the generality▪ (the most) of the Godly, (of my acquaintance, so far as I can learn): therefore, &c. Sure I am, I know not myself of any witness or Declaration of God to my soul▪ which was not in the natural way of discourse, (though supernaturally excited, assisted and succeeded); the Intellect receiving the objective Species, and seeing a Reason for the Conclusion in the Premises: and not that ever I knew any Conclusion, which is revealed neither in nature, Scripture, nor by human testimony, without knowing the Premises, and how it riseth from them. Yet I confess I have experience of strange unusual incomes of Light, and very suddenly, when I least expected it: but it is only in a Revelation of Conclusions from Premises, showing me suddenly the reason of things which I observed not, or sought after before in vain. But never found I an immediate Revelation, Euthusiasm, or Vision.
Argument 20. That Doctrine is not to be embraced which tends directly to the deluding of fanatic, proud and melancholy persons, and to drive all sober Christians, or most, to unavoidable despair; But such is this Do •• rine, that all that are Justified, have such immediate supernatural Revelations, that they are justified or pardoned, without the use of discourse to collect it: therefore
1. How directly doth this encourage everyone that hath a strong melancholy, opinionated, or diabollically deluded fancy to conclude that they are Justified by Revelation.
2. How necessarily doth it leave the generality of sober Christians to despair, who never felt such Revelations, when it is concluded that all the justified, that is the saved, must feel them.
3. What means is there to discern delusions, from such Revelations.
4. All Christians then must live by feeling, if this hold.
CHAP. IX.
The reasons why I judge that the Elect are not justified from Eternity, nor at Christ's death, nor while they are Infidels or impenitent. And that we did not Merit or satisfy justice in Christ; but he did it in the person of a Mediator.
SECT. I.
HAving (I think) proved that the Justification by Faith, that Scripture speaks of, is not the same thing which they call Justification in foro Conscientiae, or God's Declaration to the soul, or sentence in the soul that we are just or pardoned, I am next to prove that we are not justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ. The former as distinct from the latter, I will speak of but briefly, and then speak to both conjunctly.
1. The Elect are not justified from Eternity: I prove it thus.
Argument 1. To be justified, is either to be made just; or witnessed to be just, or maintained by Apology to be just, or esteemed just, or sentenced just. But the Elect are in none of all these senses justified from eternity: therefore not at all.
Yet I deny not but a man may, if he will speak unfitly, put the name of Justification upon some act that is eternal, and then if he so say, we are justified from eternity, the thing that he meaneth is true; though the words in the proper sense are false? For the Major, if they have any other fit sense of the word Justification, when we know it, we shall know what to say to it. For Dr. Twisses Non punire, & Nolle punire, I have said enough in another writing to it. To which I will now add but this. Should we grant that Remission of sin may be expressed by those terms; it must be on supposition of the existence of a Capable object: that is, that it be about a guilty person. For as it is Essential to Punishment, that it be propter peccatum, for a fault (real, or mistakingly judged so, at least), and if it be otherwise, it is but Affliction and no Punishment: So is it essential to any. Non punire, or Nolle punire, which may be called Remission, that the party be guilty who is the object. Yea and that it be an act of God as Rector, of mankind: (or Angels in their case.) Otherwise God might be said to justify or pardon a stone or a tree from eternity, because he doth Non punire, not punish them, and Nolle punire, resolve not to punish them. Now God was not Rector of the Rational Creature, before the creature did exist; that is past doubt: And as certain is it that man was not guilty from Eternity. If it be said that if sufficeth that his guilt had an esse cognitum in God; I answer, when that is proved, I will believe it.
1. As the guilt hath but an esse cognitum, so the Remission can have no higher a nature, and therefore not have an esse Reale: Nay it implieth a denial of Real existence in both: For as the esse cognitum of the guilt, is but God's foreknowledge that it will be, or his knowledge that it is future, so his Will not to punish, is but a Drcree to Remit that guilt, when it is guilt indeed; and is no Remission of it from eternity.
2. A purpose to punish, is no obligation to punishment, nor makes it due: therefore a purpose not to punish, is no Remission of any such dueness or obligation.
3. Foreknowledge is an immanent act, that puts nothing in the object: therefore it makes it not guilty, nor removeth guilt.
4. It is manifest injustice among men, to suppose a man guilty and capable of pardon or punishment merely because it is foreknown that he will offend, if any could foreknow it.
5. Foreknowledge makes no man immediately capable of punishment: therefore it makes him not capable of pardon.
For the Minor, 1. That we are not constituted just from eternity needs no proof. 2. That we are not witnessed, maintained by Plea▪ or sentenced just, need no proof neither. I know none that will affirm them. The only doubt is, whether God esteem us not just, or accept us as just from eternity? But this is answered sufficiently already, and especially in my Reply to Mr. Kendal.
1. The most learned deny that God's secret estimation is any Justification or pardon, nor so to be called. 2. If it were, it must be the estimation of God as Rector of mankind: but he is not Rector from eternity. 3. God esteemeth not that to be true which is false, nor men to be what they are not: therefore he esteemeth not men to be guilty before they are guilty, nor just before they are just: Ob. God esteemeth us just in time: therefore he so esteemed us from eternity, because esteeming is an immanent act in God. Answ. According to the commonly approved Doctrine in these high points, we must say, that as it is but Denominatione ex trinseca, or Relatione Rationis, at most: That God's Acts of Approving and Disapproving, esteeming just, and esteeming unjust, are diversified and distinguished; so in the same respects they may and must be said to begin and end according to their objects, without any change in God. And therefore we must say that God esteemeth men just, when they are just, and not before; For the same Act or Essence of God, which before was only denominated, A foreknowing that we would be just, was not to be denominated, An esteeming us to be just, till we are so indeed. So much for that Argument.
Argument 2. If we are justified from eternity, then we are justfied without Christ's satisfaction as the cause of it. But we are not Justified without Christ's satisfaction as the cause: therefore.
The Major is evident, in that Christ's satisfaction was not from eternity, and therefore could not cause from eternity. Nor was there any effect from eternity to be caused by it; God's immanent acts are commonly said to be God himself; and Christ's Merits did not cause God himself. They whom I oppose, say, that Christ's death causeth only the Rem Volitam, at non Actum volentis. They cannot say, therefore, as in the foregoing case, that it causeth in esse Cognito: or if they did, the same answer will seem fitting to this case, besides what is now said. But I need not contend where I have no adversary.
The Minor I should think most Christians should confess▪ Without Blood there is no Remission: It is Christ that is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world What need his blood be shed for the Remission of sins, that were remitted from eternity? to do that which was done before. That Doctrine which supposeth 1. That God was so prodigal of his Sons blood and sufferings. 2. That there was no more need of the sufferings and Merits of Christ, then to manifest what was done from eternity. 3. That no Elect man was ever guilty no not Adam himself upon his fall (unless he could be guilty, and not guilty at once) 4. That we are no more beholden to Christ, then for doing a needless work, as to our Justification and safety: and accordingly are no more obliged by his favor to gratitude and obedience; with multitudes of the like pernicious Consequents, which I will not bestow the time distinctly to handle, or form into several Arguments ab absurdo; I say, this Doctrine which so subverteth Christianity itself, and makes it but a name and shadow, cannot be true. • t were easy here to heap up forty Arguments from so many Texts of Scripture to prove that there is no Justification or Remission, but by Christ's Death and Merits: but I know the answer of the Adversary would be, that it is true of that sort of Remission and Justification which Christ's death procureth, but not of that sort which • s from eternity; To which I Reply, 1. No Scripture mentioneth the divers sorts of Justification which they feign (of which anon) 2. They have ill performed their parts in describing and distinguishing these two or three sorts of Justification or Pardon, which yet did lie so much upon them. 3. For ought I know, they do totally destroy the Merits of Christ: For 1. Mr. E. and the common sort of them acknowledge that it is not actum volentis, but rem volitam, which Christ procured or caused: so that Active Justification is hereby denied to be any effect of Christ's death: and how a meritorious cause can work immediately on the effect, without working on the Agent, and whether the effect of meritorious causes be not directly on the Agent, that he may produce the further effect, I have already desired Mr. E. to satisfy me Though this scruple may be well solved, yet I think, not by men of their principles. And what is the Res Volita? if it be only Justification in soro Conscientiae, it is inconceivable how Christ's Merit can cause that, without causing the act of God. For the Declaration of our righteousness to ourselves, they say is God's act: and the sense of this, or the knowledge of it, Christ's Merits do not immediately eff • ct: Merit is not terminated on our consciences. If they say, It is Right to Justification in conscience, that Christ's Merits do cause, as the Rem volitam; I answer, no Right nor real benefit can come to the Creature, (who is wholly God's own, and at his dispose) but by the Will of God, granting it as the efficient cause: If therefore Merit be no consideration, causing God's Will to grant that Right, there will be a difficulty in showing how it immediately causeth the Right itself, especially to Us. And perhaps it will anon appear, that they leave nothing to Christ's death to do in this neither; but that according to them, we had Right to all this, and much more, from eternity.
2. The words of the most sober and learned man that I know of, that writes this way, are these, Here two things may be observed; 1. What we ascribe to the Merit of Christ: viz The accomplishment of that Condition, which God required to make way, that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself, might be in actual force. And so much (how rightly, I leave to himself to consider) doth Mr. Baxter assign to our Works: Thes. 26. p. 140.
And all know, that a Condition as such, is no cause, but an Antecedent▪ or Causa sine qua non. And is not the death of Christ then fairly advanced, and his Merits well vindicated? My constant affirmation is, and still was, that man's works are not in the least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such mere Conditions of salvation (not of our first Justification) as that they are no causes of any right we have (no not to a bit of bread, much less) to Heaven. Do not these men well defend the honor of Christ's Merits then, if they give no more to them, then I do to man's works? viz. to be no meritorious causes, so much as of an hours temporal mercy? that is, To be properly no Merits at all: It seems to me therefore that they do by their Doctrine of eternal Justification or pardon not only destroy Justification by Faith, but also all the Merits of Christ▪ and leave nothing for them to do, for the causing of our pardon or Justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make Christ's sufferings and obedience so much as a bare Condition, let them consider that read him, affirming that Conditions properly must be uncertain: and nothing is so to God: therefore there can be no Condition with God: therefore Christ's death could be none.
SECT. II.
BUt I will say no more distinctly to this immanent eternal Justification, but speak to it and the other supposed Justification before Faith, both together; for dispatch. For all Arguments that conclude against Justification before Faith in general, will more evidently conclude against this supposed act from eternity, then that supposed act, at the undertaking or death of Christ.
And here it will first be requisite, that we may not make the quarrel or difference seem greater then it is, that we discern how much of our controversy is about the mere name of Remission or Justification, and how much about the Thing or Doctrine.
1. It is agreed on both sides, that God doth from eternity foreknow every sin that men will commit in time; and that he Decreeth to pardon (actually, and infallibly, and immutably) all the sins of his Elect.
2. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ gave himself a sacrifice and Ransom for the Elect; taking upon him those sufferings which he underwent, that we who had deserved everlasting suffering might escape.
3. I yield more then they desire or agree to, that Christ's sacrifice was a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and not for the Elect only; and that it was not only the sins of the Elect, which were the cause of Christ's suffering, but of fallen mankind in general.
4. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ died not for all alike, or with an equal intent of pardoning and saving them: But that he had a special intent infallibly to pardon and save all his Elect; and them alone: And that the Father had the same intent in giving his Son to death; and therefore gave him the Elect to be infallibly saved.
5. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ did perfectly pay the Ransom which he undertook, and left not any part unperformed: and that he overcame Death and Satan, and was Discharged by God's public Declaration, and that in him God was well pleased. This much we agree in.
The first thing now to be handled, wherein we differ, is, de nomine, Whether all, or any part of this be to be called the Justification of any particular person, not yet believing or born.
Conclu. 1. I affirm, that It is not fit to say that we are Justified by all or any of this, before we are born, or believe.
Argument 1. If the Scripture never call this our Justification, (or say we are Justified before we are born, or believe) then we may not fitly so call it. But the Scripture never calls it so, (nor so affirmeth): therefore we may not, &c.
For the Major, I take the Consequence as granted to be good, on this explication: That I do not say that in no case it is fit to take up any Name which the Scripture hath not used: but in this case it is not fit. For 1. We should not depart from the language of Scripture, in sacred things, without necessity: But here is no necessity: therefore, &c. 2. Specially if it be a point of supernatural Revelation, and not naturally known. But this is such: therefore. 3. And specially if it be a controverted point, where new made terms, or altering of terms in the application to the thing, may foment differences, and cloud the Truth: But this is such; therefore. 4. And also specially, if it be in a case of great moment, where mistakes are more dangerous. But this is such; therefore, &c. 5. And especially if it be a Name or Word, which is very frequently used in Scripture in another sense, and never in this sense: For then it is worse to use that word to a sense different from that of Scripture, then to devise words that are not in Scripture at all: For it tends to lead men to a Misunderstanding of all those Scriptures that otherwise use it. But that is undeniably the present case: therefore, &c. So that I think I may safely conclude that it is not fit nor safe to depart from the Scripturesense in the use of the word Justification here.
And for the Minor, that Scripture never so useth this word. To avoid the tediousness of reciting every Text where the word is used, and examining them as to this point, it may suffice 1. If you will turn by your Concordance to the Texts, and peruse them impartially, you may satisfy yourselves. 2. If we only speak to those Texts that are pretended to speak in this sense: it is enough. We have often urged the Antinomians to cite one Text of Scripture that saith, We are Justified before we were born, or do believe; and we could never yet see one produced that had any strong appearance, of speaking in that sense. Nor do I remember anymore then two, that ever I heard produced, with any show of Reason.
The first is that Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, his faith i • counted to him for Righteousness. The forementioned learned man saith, Perhaps also this may be the Justification of the ungodly, mentioned Rom. 4. God Absolving a sinner in heaven, by accounting Christ unto him, &c. To this I have said enough against Lud. Colvinus, to which I refer the Reader.
1. The Text by ungodly, plainly means (in my judgment) unjust: God makes those just, by giving them part in Christ, who are unjust by their own sins.
2. The common answer also, is far liker to truth then their Exposition: viz. that it is in sensu diviso, he that was ungodly, (and that in the same moment of time wherein he was justified) and not he that was so in order of nature after Justification as well as before, yea and in time too.
3. Ungodliness is by most Divines supposed to be opposed to sanctification, and not to our first Faith: and they judge commonly (till Mr. Pemble ) that Faith goes before Justification and Sanctification. And therefore it might be said that the person Justified is ungodly, as being unsanctified; but not an unbeliever. If they say, Can a Believer be unsanctified? I answer, There is no moment of time, wherein a Believer is unsanctified: but because in order of nature a man is first called, and then a Believer, and then justified and sanctified, therefore Justification going before Sanctification, and after Faith, the object must be accordingly denominated, quoad momenta rationis, non temporis; and we must say, God justifieth an unholy man, (because he is not holy in order of nature till after Justification;) but not that he justifieth an unbeliever, because he is in order of nature a Believer first. Though I speak not this as giving you any opinion of my own in this point, yet it being the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches, should not by Protestants be slighted.
4. At least they that bring this Text to prove the Justification of the Elect before believing, must confess that there is no such words in the text. And therefore they that will affirm that ungodly is as much as unbelieving, their bare word is no proof: and therefore we must expect some better▪ or take the point unproved.
5. Nay, what need we more words with them, when the Text twice over tells you what ungodly ones are Justified, even Believers: It must be, He that believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, and it is his Faith (that) is imputed to him for righteousness: And this man is not an unbeliever.
The second text cited to prove Justification to be a word applicable to the eternal act, or to some before • aith or existence of that person, is Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect? It is God that Justifieth, who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Answ. The whole scope of the Chapter shows that it is the sanctified Elect that are here spoken of, and not any other. It is they that are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the fl • sh, but after the Spirit, to whom there is no condemnation. v. 1. to 14. It is they that are led by the Spirit of God, and so are the Sons of God. v. 14. That have received the Spirit of Adoption. v. 15. Having the Spirit bearing them witness that they are the children of God. v. 16. That are heirs, and joint heirs with Christ. v. 17. That have Hope and Love to God. v. 24. 28. and are Saints. v. 27. And God doth exactly tell us his order of gifts. v. 30. where calling goeth before Justification. In the very text it is plain; 1. It is such Elect ones as are chargeable and condemnable, if God did not justify them. But so are not any unborn. 2. It is such as the world is apt to accuse and slander, and condemn, and this is spoken to encourage them against such sufferings from the world: But the world doth not so persecute the Elect while they are unconverted, and run with them to all excess of riot, and are foolish, disobedient, serving divers lusts and pleasures: but when they break from their captivity, and escape the pollutions of the world. 3. It is such as Christ is interceding for, as for strength and perseverance. 4. It is such as Paul was confident should persevere, and nothing separate them from the Love of God.
2. And, though I do believe that there is an Absolute Election of Individual persons to Faith and Salvation, yet it is certain, that the words Elect, and Election, do often signify that which is in time, if not far more often then that which is from eternity: When God by his Spirits effectual Grace doth choose one, and pass by another, this is (executive) Election, and these so actually chosen or taken out of the world to Christ, are Elect: and this is the most usual sense of the word in Scripture, as I think.
3. The Text speaks of such as God himself doth not condemn: but God by his Law doth condemn all Unbelievers, the Elect as well as others; though not with a Peremptory, Remediless Condemnation. For he that believeth not is condemned already: And God hath concluded all under sin. God chargeth with sin, conscience chargeth them, and others may charge them. I conclude therefore that this Tixt cannot be understood of Infidels.
Argument 2. If the name Justification be not fitted to the nature of the thing, viz. of the Decree of God to pardon us, or the present immediate effects of Christ's satisfaction, as to us, before we did exist: then it is not fit to be ordinarily applied thereto: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. Here we should examine the nature of the thing itself, and the sense of the word, but the former will be our work anon, when we come to speak of the Real or Doctrinal difference between us in this point; and the latter is oft enough done by others. I proceed to the next verbal difference.
Conclu. 2. The name of Pardon or Reconciliation is not fit to be given to God's eternal Decree of Pardoning, or to any eternal act, or any act not procured by the Mediation of Jesus Christ. The proof is the same with the former. There is no word of▪ God (that ever I observed, or heard produced by any of them to that end) that doth so use the word Pardon or Reconciliation. He that saith there is any, let him prove it if he can. I admire that they neither do something in it, or give up that cause, being so much provoked to it as they have been.
Conclu. 3. Though the names of Reconciliation, and Taking or Purging away sin, ( and perhaps Pardon) may be applied to that which Christ hath done for us with God, by his Merits, before we believe or were born, yet should it be very sparingly, and never but with sufficient caution to discover, that we mean not an Absolute, Actual Reconciliation of any man, nor such a pardoning, purging, or taking away his sin.
The reason is▪ because 1. Scripture useth these words thus, but very seldom. You hear not any act at Christ's death called by any of these names, once, for many times that you hear of pardon to Believers, and Reconciling them to God, &c. 2. You never read these words so used in Scripture, but with sufficient cautionary light (there, or near at hand) to acquaint us, that it is not personal, actual, absolute pardon or Reconciliation that is meant: and usually this is done two ways; 1. In that the Reconciliation or pardon mentioned from Christ's death, before the sinner was born, is never mentioned (that I know of) with appropriation to the Elect, or any sort of men more then others, nor with exclusion of any sinner, but as a common Reconciliation or Pardon: Now it is certain that all men attain not to an absolute, actual pardon and Reconciliation. 2. In that when the Scripture doth mention Reconciliation or purging away sin, &c. as done before we believe, it either prescribes us some Condition or Means by which it may be made Ours in particular, or else some other way makes it manifest that it is not yet ours, anymore then the rest of lost mankind's. Let us peruse the particular places.
The most remarked text, and most urged by them that we oppose is, 2 Cor. 5. 19. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation: Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye Reconciled to God. To this I have spoken against L. Colvinus.
Note here, 1. That the Text saith not, God was Reconciled to the world, but God was Reconciling the world: He did much, and as much as concerned the sufficiency of a Sacrifice, Ransom and Satisfaction towards an actual Reconciliation, which through their own willful rejection, many do miss of.
2. Note that the Text only saith, God was Reconciling, &c. not Imputing their sin. Not that he did not at all impute sin to them: but he was then, not dealing with them according to the desert of their sin, but in mercy: So far was he in that work from imputing sin to them, or then charging it on them, that he was providing a sufficient Remedy for the pardon of it, if they would accept it freely given.
3. Note that it is not any special sort of persons, that are here spoken of, but the world; whether simply considered, as the whole race of mankind▪ or whether the Gentiles as well as the Jews: it is to avoid an exclusion of any, and not to exclude any: and therefore it is not meant of the Elect only.
4. The next words most plainly show that they were not yet actually reconciled, when the Office of Ambassadors is appointed, to beseech men in Christ's stead, and as if God did it by us, to be reconciled to God. If they were Reconciled already, what need Ministers beseech them to be Reconciled? I remember Den and other Antinomians say, that God was reconciled to them, but not they to him: but this vain objection I have answered in two former writings already.
The 2. Text that is urged, is Joh. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Here note 1. The text saith not that, He hath taken away, but he taketh away, as Erasmus and Beza, signifying his continued act in taking away sin: So that it saith nothing of taking it away before we believe. Beza thinks John pointed to Christ in reference to his Baptism, to show them that it was by virtue of Christ's blood, that the sins of the baptized were taken away. 2. The word here used, may signify the taking away of sin itself in its power, as well as Guilt: And though we may not expound it as Grotius doth, of taking away sin itself only, yet we may well do as other Expositors do, extend it to both. Beza blames them that restrain it to the taking away of Punishment only, and himself expounds it of both, Punishment and Power of sin. Now it is certain that Christ took not away the Power of sin, or sin itself before we were born, or did believe. 3. Note that, if it were granted that it is meant of taking away sin, at the time of Christ's death, yet it would prove but a common taking away, and therefore not an Absolute and Actual pardon: For if it be so understood, the world will never be proved to be meant of the Elect only.
Another text that is stronger in appearance then this, for the phrase in question, is Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. To which I say, 1. The text saith not he pardoned or Justified us, but he made a purgation, as the words are expressly. 2. They whom we in this oppose, deny not but that it is the sin itself, or power of it, as well as the guilt▪ that is purged away through the blood of Christ: yet none will say that sin itself, or the strength of it is purged away, before we are born or believe, but only that Christ made a Purgation, which should in time, being applied, effectually, and actually purge us from sin▪ 3. The text having reference to the Jewish sacrifices, doth plainly speak of Christ's blood as a price or sacrifice; and only intendeth that he did make a sufficient Purgation of our sins, quoad pretinm, vel s • crificii perfectionem: as far as concerned him as sacrificer of himself. He did all that was his part on the Cross to do; though there remained more to do in the application and conveyance of Right to particular persons, by his Word and Spirit: If the High Priest had offered a sacrifice for the sins of an obstinate impenitent sinner, he had not thereby made a legal effectual Purgation of his sin, supposing the sinner, at least, to declare his Dissent and Impenitency. Yet it is so much that Christ hath done before we believe, that we may see Reason why it may bear the name of Purgation or Reconciling; because it is a Pardon sufficiently purchased by him, and granted freely by God to all that Refuse it not, when it is offered them. If a Kings Son pay a Ransom for 100. Traitors, and his Father grant and seal them a pardon, is it not fit or tolerable language to say, the King hath pardoned these men, or the Prince hath bought their pardon? Yet it is no actual pardon, till they consent, if we suppose it to be granted on Condition of their Consent or Acceptance. And so reasonable, so naturally necessary is that Condition, that it is not used to be expressed in Pardons or the like Grants, but implied; But whether expressed or not, it is in the nature of the thing most commonly supposed: And if it did run in an Absolute form, yet is Acceptance still implied as an unquestionable Condition, and as to it, the Pardon is not intended to be Absolute. Yet if such a Pardon were brought to a Traitor at the Gallows, and he refuse it, and be hanged; men would say, that The K • ng or State did Pardon such a man, but he willfully refused it.
I know no other texts that have near so strong appearance of favoring their cause, as these cited, especially the last, and therefore I shall not need to mention anymore; but come to the Doctrinal difference.
ANd here it is hard to say wherein we disagree, because they agree not among themselves, some saying one thing, and some another. Most of them say, that we are actually pardoned and justified in Christ at his undertaking to die for us; and that it is but the knowledge, and comfortable feeling of this that is wanting to us: Mr. Crandons words are these in his Epist. Dedic. Justification as an Immanent act in God: As actually completed in the Redemption which is by Christ, and in Christ; both these before we believe. So that it is Actual and Compleated Justification, which they suppose to be before Faith. Many of them use to express themselves, that Christ being the Public person, he represented all the Elect, and they died in him, and satisfied in him, and were justified in him.
The forementioned Learned man, makes the ground of the Elects Absolution to be, they dying with him, as he speaks: and saith that Christ is Reckoned to us, and God's Reckoning Christ in our present sense, is the imputing of Christ to ungodly unbelieving sinners for whom he died, so far as to account him Theirs, to bestow Faith and Grace on them for his sake. And If then this be done for Christ's sake, then is Christ made ours before we believe: And I cannot conceive how anything should be made out to me for Christ, and Christ himself not be given to me. And the Question he offers is this: Whether Absolution from the guilt of sin, and Obligation unto Death, though not as terminated in the Conscience for Compleat Justification, do not precede our Actual believing? So that this learned man seems to judge that the name of Compleat Justification is proper to that in Conscience, and not to be given to any before. He seems also to judge that Justification hath Degrees and Parts at many 100 or 1000 years distance one from another: Or else Absolution at least hath, which we have hitherto taken for the same thing with Justification. For as he calls this in conscience, Compleat Justification; So he saith Absolution in Heaven, and Justification, differ as Part and Whole. By this much it may be gathered where our difference lieth in sense, as well as terms. We will except then Justification as Terminated in Conscience, and speak to that which is terminated, or ( passive sumpta ) consisteth in our mere Relation, of being Just: Of all the forementioned forts of Justification that will fitly bear that name (I mean of Actual Justification of such persons,) the first in Order is Constitutive Justification, or Making us Just: and therefore if I prove that this is not before Faith, it must needs follow that the rest are not. I confess the grounds of their mistake do call loudest for a Confutation. 1. That We died with Christ, or satisfied in him, or fulfilled the Law in him. 2. That Christ is given to us in special manner more then to others, (the not-Elect) before we believe. Against both these I would oppose these two Conclusions.
1. We did neither Really, nor in God's Account, Dye with Christ when he died, nor in him satisfy God's Justice, nor fulfil the Law. Con. 2. Though Christ were given for the Elect, more then others▪ yet is he no more given to them then others, before they are born, or before they have Faith. The first of these is of so great moment, and is the heart and root of so many Errors, yea of the whole body of Antinomianism, that I had rather write as great a volumn as this against it, then leave it with so brief a touch as here▪ must do, if I should particularly fall upon it. Let it therefore now suffice, to tell the Affirmers, that it is their part to prove it, which I think, they will never be able to do, while Scripture is taken for God's Word.
SECT. III.
I Will come therefore to the point in question, and prove this Conclusion contrary to theirs.
Conclu. No man now living was Justified, Pardoned, or Absolved actually from the guilt of sin, and Obligation to Death, at the time of Christ's death, or undertaking▪ or from eternity, or at any time before he was born, or before he did believe; (or being an Infant, had a Believing Parent. )
Though I think it reasonable that the Case of Infants and Heathens that hear not the Word, should be laid by in this dispute, least the case be carried into the dark, and men argue à minùs notis.
I put the Conclusion in their own terms: To me and other men, all these (or 3 at least) are one and the same thing, viz. To be actually justified, and pardoned, and Absolved from the guilt of death, and Absolved from the Obligation to Death or Punishment. Guilt is an Obligation to Punishment; at least, Guilt of death distinct from the mere Reatus Culpae. The dissolving of the Obligation to Punishment, is Pardon (that is the true Nature of pardon.) Pardon is taken by some to be the whole of Justification, and the same thing; though notionally differing: by others to be part of it, and Imputation of righteousness the other part: or Accepting us as Righteous, as others. If therefore we are Absolved from the Guilt of Death, and from the obligation to Punishment, then we are certainly pardoned and justified. And this must be in Law-sense, as to Right and Title, and Constitutively, at least. For it is the Law that obligeth us to Punishment, and concludeth us under guilt: therefore if the Laws Obligation to Punishment be dissolved, then in Law we are pardoned and Constituted Righteous. This is it therefore that I deny, and shall now confute; and in this sense I shall disprove the pretended pardon and Justification of the Elect, at the undertaking, or death of Christ.
Argument 1. From John. 3. 18. He that Believeth on him, is not condemned: but he that believeth not, is condemned already. He that is condemned, is not pardoned, absolved or justified: He that believeth not, though Elect, is condemned; therefore.
I know nothing that can be said against the Major, but that he may be condemned in one kind▪ and yet absolved in another. But that is nothing to the Argument, as long as Condemnation and Absolution are here taken in the same kind. Absolution, as you heard, is taken for Dissolving guilt of Death, or Obligation to Punishment, or Absolving from these: And Condemnation here must needs be taken as opposite to that kind of Absolution: for to that in conscience it is not opposed, as I have already proved: And to that at Judgment, whether by Witness, Advocate, or Sentence, it cannot be here opposed: For many that are now condemned as unbelievers, shall Believe▪ and then be Absolved.
The common answer is against the Minor, that the Text speaks only of such Unbelievers, as shall so live and die and are not Elect: But when that is proved, they say something. In the mean time, if Christ say without limitation, that He that Believeth not is condemned already; We shall take it for a Contradiction and not an Exposition, to say, the meaning is, Not all that believe not are condemned, but they that shall so live and die: Else I know not what Scripture may not be thus perverted. So Origen, or any of that mind might have said, that the Text which saith, Their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched; is not meant of all the damned, but of those that continue there Impenitent and Unbelievers.
Argument 2. They that are dead in Trespasses and Sins, and by nature the children of wrath, even as others, were not justified, absolved or pardoned, as aforesaid, in Christ, before they believed or were born. But many of the Elect were (after Christ's death) dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature the children of wrath, even as others▪ therefore.
I think the Major needs no proof. The Minor is expressed, Ephes. 2. 1. 3. All the answer that is commonly given is, that They were Justified in Christ, and yet children of wrath in themselves: But what is the meaning of in Christ, and in themselves? One man hath but one person, and that cannot be at once justified and condemned, in the same kind. Its like they mean as Mr. Eyre expresseth himself; that it is not we that are the subject of that Righteousness, but Christ. That is plain dealing: but then it is undeniable that it is not we that are justified by it, but Christ: For no Accident is ours, or can denominate us, whereof we are not the subject.
Argument 3. From Ephes. 2. 12. At that time ye were without Christ, being Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. They that are thus without Christ, Covenants of Promise▪ Hope, God, are not in Law Absolved from the guilt of death, and obligation to punishment: But such are many of the Elect, if not all before they believe: therefore.
Argument 4. From Tit. 3. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, &c. But after that the kindness and Love of God our Savior, toward man appeared: not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved as, by the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy-Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his Grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. If we are not justified nor made Heris before the washing of Regeneration, then we are not Justified or Absolved from the guilt of death, before we believe or were born: But the Antecedent is true (and plain in the Text:) therefore so is the Consequent.
Argument 5. They that are under the Curse of the Law, (that is, obliged to death eternal by it) are not justified, or absolved from the guilt of death. But the Elect before Faith are, at least many of them, if not all, under the Curse of the Law: therefore.
The Major I suppose will be granted; for the Law to curse men to death, when the Obligation to that death is Dissolved, and they absolved from it, is to contradict itself or God.
The Minor I prove thus. They that are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse. Many, at▪ least, of the Elect before Faith, are of the Works of the Law: therefore they are under the Curse.
The Major is the Word of God, Gal. 3. 10. For as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the curse. The Minor is plain, unless no such Jew or Legalist be convertible.
Argument 6. If all are concluded by God's Laws under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe, then the Elect are not Absolved from the guilt of sin or death, before they believe: But the Antecedent is God's Word; Gal. 3. 22. therefore.
Argument 7. From Rom. 3. 23. 9. 10. 19. We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. That all the world may become guilty before God. They that are not righteous, but have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, and are under sin, and guilty before God; are not Absolved from the guilt of sin and death, nor Justified: But such are the Elect before they believe: therefore.
Argument 8. From Rom. 5. 12, 13, 14. Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no Law; Nevertheless death required from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitade of Adams transgression, &c, But not as the offense, s •• the free Gift, &c. Those, over whom death reigned, (according to the sense of this text) through the Imputation of sin, both original and actual, were not Justified or Absolved from the Guilt of death, before they were born, or were Believers: But such were those to whom the free Gift came for Justification by Faith in Christ: therefore. I take it for granted that those whom I dispute against, do take the efficacy of Christ's death to be immediately after the fall, or that Adam was sentenced, and the Promise made, and not only since the time of his actual dying.
Argument 9. From Rom. 5. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Those men are not yet absolved from guilt, and Justified or Pardoned, over whom sin reigneth unto death, on whom judgment is come to condemnation, that are so made sinners, as not yet to be made righteous, justified, or have received the free gift: But such are the Elect before they believe: therefore.
Argument 10. From Rom. 7. 1. Know ye not, that the Law hath Dominion over a man as long as he liveth? They, over whom the Law hath Dominion, are not Absolved from its Obligation to Punishment: But such are the Elect before believing (all or some) verse. 4. therefore.
Argument 11. They that are the Servants of sin, free from righteousness, doing that whose end and wages is death, in whom sin did work, to bring forth fruit unto death, that are not under Grace, but under the Law, &c. are not Absolved from the Laws Obligation to punishment, nor pardoned. But such were the Elect (all or some) before believing. Rom. 6. 14, 15. 13. 16, 20, 21, 23. and 7. 5. therefore, &c.
Argument 12. From Rom. 8. 1. There is therefore now no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This plainly implies, that till men are in Christ Jesus, there is still Condemnation to them. Those that are not yet freed from Condemnation, are not Justified, absolved, pardoned: But such are the Elect, till they are in Christ Jesus: therefore.
Argument 13. From Rom. 8. 1, 6, 7, 8, 13. They that have that carnal mind which is death, and enmity against God, and cannot please God, and shall die, if they hold on, these are not yet Justified, Pardoned, or Absolved from the Laws Obligation to death. But such are the Elect (all or some) before they believe: therefore.
Argument 14. From Rom. 8. 2. He that is not made free from the Law of sin, and death, is not absolved from the Laws obligation to punishment. But Paul an Elect man, before he believed, was once not freed from the Law of sin and of death: therefore.
Argument 15. From Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. He that is none of Christ's, is not Absolved from the guilt of death. The Elect that have not the Spirit of Christ, are none of his: therefore. Though they are chosen by him, they have no Legal Right to him.
Argument 16. From John. 8. 24, 32, 33, 34, 36. They that are yet in their sins, and not made free by the Son, are not Absolved from the guilt of death: But such are all Unbelievers, though Elect: therefore, &c.
Argument 17. He that lies under the Threatning, that he shall not live; he that hath no life in him, (neither of Justification nor Sanctification) such are not Justified or Absolved. But they that eat not the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, have no life in them, and (except they do it) shall not see Life. John. 6. 53, 54, 57, 58, 59. Read the Text, and note that it is not upon the mere shedding of Christ's blood, but on the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by Faith, that we receive eternal life, in the beginnings and right to it.
Argument 18. From Psal. 5. 5. Thou hatest all workers of Iniquity. Those whom God hateth, he hath not yet Justified or Absolved from the guilt of death. But the Elect before Conversion God hateth: therefore. The Minor is proved: God hateth all workers of Iniquity, the Elect before Conversion are workers of iniquity: therefore.
I know this is a hatred consistent with the Love of Election and Redemption: but not with the Love of actual Reconciliation, Remission, Justification or Absolution from the guilt of death For this Hatred is, when God stands related to them as any enemy, according to the terms of his Laws, which is, while the effects of Hatred, that is, Destruction remains their Due according to Law. And this cannot be when they are absolved from that obligation and pardoned.
Argument 19, From 1 John. 3. 8. 10. 7. Let no man deceive you: he that doth Righteousness, is Righteous, even as he is Righteous. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil, &c. In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the Devil: whosoever doth not righteousness, is not of God, neither he that loveth not his Brother. They that are not of God, nor Righteous, nor are the children of God, but are the children of the Devil, are not yet Justified, Pardoned, Reconciled and Absolved from the guilt of death. But such are the Elect before conversion: therefore. The Minor is too evident. They that do not Righteousness, nor Love their brother, are the children of the Devil. The Elect before Conversion do not righteousness, nor love their brother (at least some of them): therefore.
Argument 20. From 1 Joh. 3. 14, 15. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren: He that loveth not his brother, ab • death in Death, &c. He that abideth in death, and is not passed from death to life, is not Justified, Pardoned, or Absolved from the guilt of death. But the Elect before Conversion abide in death, and are not passed from death to life: therefore. The text proves the Minor. He that loveth not the brethren abideth in death, and is not passed from death to Life. The Elect before conversion, love not the Brethren: therefore. Death here is not only the power of sin, but the guilt of death: and life is not only holiness, but Relative life also, and Right to life eternal.
Argument 21. From 1 Joh. 5. 10, 11, 12. He that believeth not, hath made God a Lyar, &c. He that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not life. He that hath not the Son, nor that life which God hath given in him, is not yet Absolved from the guilt of death, nor Pardoned, nor • ustified. The Elect that yet believe not, have not the Son, nor that life which God hath given in him: therefore, &c.
Argument 22. Heb. 11. 6. Without Faith it is impossible to please God. If it be impossible for the Elect to please God without faith, then they are not actually reconciled to him, nor pardoned, nor absolved from the guilt of death without Faith. But the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the Consequent.
The common Answers, (and all that I know of) that are made to this, are these two. 1. That the person is not in himself, but in Christ only Pleasing or Acceptable to God, without Faith: and then in himself acceptable when he believeth. To which I Reply; If by in himself, they mean Objective, that Christ, and not he himself is the Object of God's Acceptation, or that God is well pleased with them, habetur propositum, they grant what I desire: It is not the Unbeliever, but Christ that is righteous too: therefore let Christ be the subject denominated only, if he be the only Object of Acceptation: say not then that men are Absolved, Pardoned, &c. If by in himself, they mean causaliter, by way of Merit, I hope they will not stand to it, that the Regenerate do meritoriously please God in themselves, (no more then the unregenerate) but only in Christ. 3. Or if another way be found of pleasing God, yet it is here a general denial of our pleasing God; and if you will limit it to any one kind, it must be to that pleasing which is proper to the Regenerate, which is to be Adopted, Reconciled, Absolved, &c. 4. To say that we please God in Christ before we believe, is but to contradict the text, which saith we please him not: and supposeth that we are in him before we believe, which is against the Scripture.
The second Answer I remember in Mr. Pemble, and its the most common, viz. that They cannot please God with their Actions, or their Actions are not such as please God, but their persons do: therefore this text speaks not of their persons, but their actions. To which I Reply, 1. That this is a contradiction: for the person to please God, and all his future sins be pardoned before hand, and especially in the Antinomian sense, so as for God to see no iniquity in them, and yet to be displeased with his Actions. As nothing but imputed sin can make God displeased, so the Act and the Actor are so nearly related, that if the act displease God, the Actor must needs, in some measure, or so far, displease him. If displeasure be taken for dislike, or disapproving, then God doth so far dislike or disapprove of the persons, even of Believers, as he disapproveth their actions: that is, He disliketh them as evil actors, or as sinners, at the same time when he is pleased with them, and loveth them as Redeemed, Reconciled, Pardoned sinners in Christ. But if displeasure be taken for anger, or Castigatory punishing displeasure, then this cannot be ultimately terminated on the sin, but the sinner: It is not actions that are punished, but men for actions. God was displeased with David himself, and not with his actions only. If displeasure signify, that It is against God's will that such actions are, then I say, as it is his Legislative will de Debito, that must be here understood, so it is as much against his will, that such a person do it, as that it be done: He doth not use to constitute the Dueness of actions, without determining of the persons from whom they shall be due; Actions are not the subjects of his Government, so properly as actors. He forbiddeth actions no otherwise, then by forbidding the persons to commit them. He saith not, There shall be no murder, adultery, &c. but, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, &c. Moreover, when the sin lieth in the Act of Reasoning, Willing, Nilling; the Elicite Acts of the Rational soul, it is somewhat nice distinguishing, to say, God is not pleased with the Actions, but he is fully pleased with the Actor: And they that assert such curious niceties, should do well to prove them plainly out of Scripture, if they can, and not expect that all men should be so credulous as themselves, nor too easily accept them on their bare obtruding, and naked affirmation. My plain opinion is, that though God be most eminently and principally pleased with us, in Christ, and for his Merits, and not at all for our own, yet that he will not be perfectly pleased with us in this life, but only in that life, when by Christ we shall be presented to him perfect, blameless, without wrinkle or spot. He that perfectly pleaseth God, is himself most perfect, as having attained his end, and therefore is glorified in heaven.
2. But all this that I have spoken, is not very needful: for it is not only unproved that it is only the actions, and not the persons that the Text speaketh of, but the contrary is most evident in the Text. For v. 2. It was the Elders themselves, and not only their Actions that obtained a good Report by Faith. In v. 4. it was Abel himself that obtained witness that he was righteous; and not only his action in v. 5. it is said of Enoch himself, that he had this Testimony, that he pleased God. So that it was Enoch himself, & not only his action. And then the words of the text in hand are immediately added as an Assumption, But without Faith it is impossible to please God: whereby it is past question that it speaketh of the same Pleasing as the foregoing words do, which is of the person.
And therefore Beza renders it, Atqui fieri non potest, ut absque fide quisquam Deo sit Gratus, applying it to the person.
And the next words which are given as the reason of these, do further evince this. For he that cometh to God (and so will be Accepted of him) must believe that he Is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him: And it is the Person that he Rewardeth
All the following Chapter running in the same strain, doth fully manifest, that it is the person that cannot possibly please God, without Faith, and not only his Actions, it being the Acceptation, Justification, or Salvation of Persons by Faith, that the whole Chapter treats of.
Argument 23. From 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Effeminates, nor Abusers of themselves with mankind, nor Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Revilers, nor Extortioners shall Inherit the Kingdom of God: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus▪ and by the Spirit of our God. Those men who lie under the Threatning of being shut out of heaven, even by the Law of Christ, and on whom that threatening shall be executed, if they be not washed, sanctified, and justified afterward, are not yet justified, pardoned or absolved from the guilt of death. But such are the Elect before conversion: therefore.
Argument 24. From Gal. 5. 18. 23. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law. Against such there is no Law. They that are under the Law, and against whom the Law is, are not Absolved from the Laws Obligation to punishment, that is, not pardoned or justified. But such are all unconverted ones, even the Elect that have not the Spirit; therefore.
Argument 25. From Gal. 5. 2, 3, 4. Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised▪ that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are Justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. They that are Debtors to do the whole Law, and to whom Christ is become of none effect, and profiteth them nothing, as to the matter of righteousness, are not justified, pardoned, or absolved from the guilt of death: But such are some of the Elect, before effectual saving Faith: therefore.
The Major seems to me to need no proof. The Minor is plain from the Text. Paul supposeth some of the Galatians either really in this Condition, or too near it, and in possibility of it: And yet he supposeth them Recoverable, as appeareth by his exhortations, and many particular passages in the Epistle. 1. Seeing it is not the sin against the holy Ghost, no man can give a reason why the Elect, before true Conversion, though after convictions and common profession, may not fall into it as well as others. The sin is not uncurable nor unpardonable: Nor hath God made any Promise that none of his Elect shall fall into it. 2. Nay the reason of the Apostle plainly showeth that all the Jews that expected Justification by the Law, and not by Christ, (which was the case of the unconverted, at least of many), were in the same condition, even Debtors to do the whole Law, and Christ of none effect to them, and profited them nothing.
The Text seems so plain, that it is not easy to discern what may be objected: But we may conjecture they will say: Obj. 1. It was in foro Conscientiae only, or in their own feeling that Christ was of none effect to them, and not before God. Answ. The contrary is plain in the Text. 1. It is a greater matter then a misapprehension of Conscience, or an ignorance of the felicity which they had Right to, that the Apostle speaks of: as the whole Epistle shows. 2. He saith expressly, that they are debtors to do the whole Law; So that it is matter of Debt, and not mere matter of knowledge, conceit or sense, that he speaks of. 3. He saith plainly, that Christ profiteth them nothing, and is become of none effect to them: But surely if they had then Right to salvation, and were pardoned, justified, absolved from all guilt of death, then Christ did profit them very much, though they wanted the knowledge of all this. Obj. But the Apostles words must be understood with some limitation: for if Christ profit them nothing, then they cannot have Repentance and Faith from him, and so cannot be recovered. Answ. 1. It is plainly to be understood, as to the subject in hand: that as to Justification, Remission of sin, and discharging from the Debt of the Law, he is yet of none effect to them, and profiteth them nothing. 2. Though he have satisfied God's Justice for them, and intend in time their infallible conversion, by giving them Faith and Repentance, yet these are in himself and have made no change on them, and therefore Christ is yet of none effect to them, and profiteth them nothing, either as to Sanctification, or Justification and Absolution.
Obj. But the Text speaks only to them that are Justified by the Law, and that is no man. Answ. 1. But do you think the Apostle speaks to no man? 2. The text saith, Every man that is circumcised, and that was not no man. 3. If any had really been justified by the Law, they had not been so miserable as Paul describes these. 4. It is plain therefore that Paul speaks of those that expected to be justified by the Law, and so thought and professed, but were not so indeed.
Obj. Paul speaks only on supposition that they live and die so, and then they are not Elect. Answ. That is to contradict the text, and not to expound it. Paul speaks in the present tense, To every man that is circumcised, Christ is become of none effect. And he speaks to them as miserable, and yet curable, and therefore endeavoreth the cure of some, and the preservation of the rest.
Argument 26. From 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. He that is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, is not absolved from that guilt. Some Elect men are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: Too easily proved, in that they before Conversion may eat and drink unworthily; therefore.
Argument 27. From Heb. 8. 11, 12. For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. If God do put his Law into men's minds, and write them in their hearts, and give them to know him, at the same time when he pardoneth their sin, and putteth them out of his Remembrance, then Infidels or men unborn are not pardoned: But the Antecedent is plain in the text: therefore.
They cannot say, it is only pardon in conscience that is here spoken of, for it is God's Remembering their iniquity no more; and being merciful to them, being their God, &c.
Argument 28. From Heb. 9. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the Promise of eternal Inheritance. If Christ were the Mediator of the New Testament for this cause, that his death for Redemption of transgressions, might be a means, that they that are called might receive the promise of the Inheritance, then was it no effect of Christ's death, to give that Promise to the uncalled, (and if not the Promise of eternal Inheritance, then not of Absolution, for it is confessed that they go together): But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.
Argument 29. From Jam. 5. 20. Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. So Mark 4. 12. Lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. If upon Conversion men's sins be forgiven them, hidden, and their souls saved from death, then were they not forgiven, and Absolved from the guilt of death before. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. It cannot here be said that it is in conscience only that all this is done: for that wer enot to save a soul from death, but to save a soul from the sorrowful apprehensions of death (which yet the wicked are seldom troubled with): if that the man were saved and absolved from the guilt of death before. Nor were this to forgive them so properly, as to acquaint them that they were long before forgiven.
Argument 30. From Act. 26. 18. To open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive Remission of sin, and Inheritance among them that are sanctified, by Faith that is in me. If it be God's Order to give men illumination, and Faith that they may receive Remission of sins, then their sins were not before Remitted: But this is God's Order: therefore, They receive not what they had before.
Argument 31. From Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them also he Justified, &c. Justification is placed according to God's Order between Calling and Glorifying: therefore it is not before we believed or were born. The more are these two last cited Texts to be regarded, because they do the most clearly, and as of purpose express the order of the causes of salvation, or of God in conveying to us the saving fruits of Christ's death▪ of any that I know of in Scripture.
Argument 32. From Psal. 32. 1, 2, 3. with Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8, 9. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose Spirit there is no guile. And Paul showeth, that all this is when Faith is Imputed for Righteousness. If men's transgression be then in order forgiven, their sins covered, and not imputed to them, when their Spirits are without guile, and when they believe, and not before; then Infidels, or men that are no men, are not forgiven, Justified or Absolved. But the Antecedent is true: therefore.
Argument 33. From Act. 8. 21, 22, 23. Thou hast neither part nor Lot in this matter, for thy heart is not Right in the sight of God: Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of Iniquity: whether by this matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be meant in Christ, and the Grace of Christ, or else in the Word of Promise which we preach; the matter comes all to one. He that hath yet no part or lot in Christ or the Promise of the Gospel, and is not forgiven, but is in the Gall of bitterness, and obligation of Iniquity, is not Absolved from the guilt of death, or obligation to Punishment. But such may an Elect person be, before conversion: therefore. The Minor is proved from the text thus, 1. There is no sin here charged on Simon, but what an Elect man unconverted may commit. 2. Peter supposeth this, when he sets him on praying for forgiveness. 3. His reason, for thy heart is not Right with God, makes this the case, in some degree at least, of all whose hearts are not right with God: and that is the Elect as well as other, before Conversion.
Argument 34. Act. 13. 38, 39. Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. If that Justification which is opposed to the (supposed) Justification by the Law of Moses, come with or after believing, then no Infidels are absolved from the Laws Obligation to death. But the Antecedent is plain in the text: therefore.
Argument 35. From 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And verse. 7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If those that will not confess sin, nor walk in the light be not forgiven, nor cleansed from all sin, then no Infidels or Impenitent ones, though Elect, are forgiven, or so cleansed. But the Antecedent is plain in the text. therefore.
It may be objected, 1. That he saith not, that no other are forgiven. Answ. It is most plainly implied: or else the Apostle could not make Confession a Condition, no nor so much as a sign, to distinguish the pardoned from the unpardoned. 2. It may be objected, that this is spoken of true Believers, and yet they are forgiven. Answ 1. Prove that it is spoken of them. 1. They walk in the light. 2. And confess sin. 2. If it were, yet would it hold à fortiore: If true Believers, whose former sins are pardoned, shall not yet have their future sins pardoned, but upon Confession, &c. then much less shall they that yet have no sin pardoned, receive pardon while • nfidels.
Argument 36. From Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked, Thou art righteous, him shall the People curse, nations shall abhor him If God have forbidden it men as a heinous sin, to say, the wicked is righteous, then he will not do it himself. But the Antecedent is true: therefore.
Though the Consequent hold not in all cases, yet in this it will, where the reason of the prohibition is because the thing spoken is false: for God cannot lie. Obj. But this is spoken only of Inherent righteousness, and not of that which consisteth in a Right to Impunity. Answ. I deny it, God forbiddeth also Justifying the wicked, as an abomination to him. He that saith to the wicked, either, Thou art not wicked, or Thou art not condemnable, guilty of death, or obliged to punishment; doth justi •• e him, and say, Thou art Righteous. Obj. God himself justifieth the ungodly or unrighteous. Answ. That is not by saying they are righteous when they are not, but by making them righteous in Law sense, of unrighteous, and then judging them to be as they are. And he justifieth them sententially by the Gospel that are not Justifiable by the Law: But he Justifieth them no further then they are truly Justifiable.
Obj. But we are never righteous in ourselves, but in Christ. Answ. God makes us ourselves Righteous, by giving us right to Impunity and the Kingdom, for the sacrifice and Merits of Christ. Obj. But we are not righteous inherently with such a righteousness of our own Works, as will suffice to Justify us against the Accusations of the Law. Answ. Nor doth God ever esteem us so, nor say we are so, nor justify us on those terms.
Argument 37. From 2 Pet. 2. 14. Mal. 1. 14. Jer. 17. 5. Pro. 3. 33. If many of the Elect before Conversion are cursed of God, and his curse be in their house, then are they not Absolved from all guilt of death, and obligation to punishment. But the Antecedent is plain in the text; therefore.
Argument 38. From Psal. 10. 3. Zach. 11. 8. Psal. 5. 6. Pro. 11. 20. and 17. 15. and 28. 9. and 15. 8, 9. and 16. 5. If the Elect before Conversion are abhorred of God, and are an abomination to him, and their sacrifices, and prayers an abomination to him, then are they not Justified, pardoned, actually reconciled, or absolved from guilt of death. But the Antecedent is plain in the text: therefore.
At least me thinks they whom we oppose, should see the ground of their Assertion subverted by all this: For if the perfection of Christ's satisfaction were a sufficient ground to conclude that God must needs immediately pardon and absolve us, or did so, or that he were unjust if he should lay any penalty on us, when Christ hath born our punishment, then the same reason would prove it unjust in God, to Curse us, Abhor us, Abominate us, and actually inflict castigatory punishments on us, when Christ hath born our punishment.
Argument 39. For brevity, shall be from all those texts that affirm Remission of sin, and Justification to be given to men, if they will Repent and Believe, or to be by Faith, or to follow faith: Act. 10. 43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of sins. Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins. Luk. 24. 47. And that Repentance and Remission of sin should be preached in his name among all Nations. Act. 5. 30, 31. Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree, him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give Repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. So those that speak of the forgiveness of the particular sins of the Godly, after the Commission, and where they are taught to pray for it. And 1 John. 1. 9. Luk. 6. 37. and 11. 4. Mar. 11. 25, 26. Dan. 9. 9▪ 19. Ier. 31. 34. and 36. 3. Psal. 86. 5. and 25. 18. 2 Chron. 6. 21, 25, 27, 30, 39. and 7. 14. Psal. 130. 4. and 51. 1. • . So of Justification by Faith. Isa. 53. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant Iustifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Rom. 3. 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30. Therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, &c. But now the righteousness of God, without the Law is manifested▪ &c. Even the righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe, &c. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ: whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God: To declare I say at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what Law? Of works? Nay, but by the Law of Faith: therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith, without the deeds of the Law. Seeing it is one God that shall justify the Circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the Law through Faith, &c. Rom. 5. 1, 2. Therefore being justified by Faith, we have Peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by Faith into this Grace wherein we stand. Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the Works of the Law: for by the Works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. Vers. 20. The Life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the Faith of the Son of God, &c. Gal. 3. 7, 8. Know ye therefore, that they which are of Faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham; In thee shall all Nations be blessed. So then they which be of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the Law, are under the Curse, &c. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: for the just shall live by Faith: and the Law is not of Faith. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. 26. For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus. So I am. 2. 13, 14. to the end. Many more to the like purpose might be added, in which it appears that God's time and order of giving us pardon and justification, is upon our Believing, and not while we are Infidels: and that this is a Justification in Law sense, and not merely in conscience▪ as was before proved: It was not only by Christ and the Absolute Promise made to the Elect, but it was by the Law of Faith that boasting was excluded. I will not stand to answer the vain objections here brought in by some, knowing that the light of the express text to the impartial may suffice.
Argument 40 Shall be from all those texts, which say Faith is imputed to us for righteousness: which upon these two Considerations do clearly evince the point. 1. That it is not only a judicial Sentence, much less a sense or Reception in conscience, which both imply that the person is before constituted or made righteous in Law; But it is the very giving and imputing of righteousness itself that is here mentioned. 2. When the interest of Faith is such that it is said to be imputed for righteousness, it is undeniable that it is not while we are Infidels that we are righteous.
I go not about now to determine how far, and in what sense it is that Faith is imputed: but in what sense soever it is, it shows that Faith there must be, or else how can it be imputed for righteousness at all. As for them that say▪ that by Faith, is not meant Faith, but Christ, I hope I shall not believe them, as long as I believe that God would be understood: and that the Word is a Lamp and a Light, and not a darkness. And for some of the Reformed Divines themselves, that say that it is Christ believed in, that is meant by Faith, though I doubt not but Faith Essentially includeth Christ its object, and therefore accordingly connotes it, and therefore whenever it is said that Faith is imputed for righteousness, or that we are justified by Faith: it is connoted that we are in a more excellent kind of causality justified by Christ, then by Faith (Faith indeed being no proper cause); Yet I believe not that by Faith, is not meant Faith itself, but only Christ: and the contrary to him that will read the text impartially is as evident, as any sense can be in words: But yet if it be Christ believed in, that is meant by Faith, then Faith there must be: It is not Christ despised, or not believed in that justi •• eth, or pardoneth, or absolveth any. I will recite some of the words: Rom. 4. 3. &c. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for righteousness. 6. Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without Works. 9. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness 10 How was it then reckoned, &c. 11. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith▪ which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. 13. For the Promise that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the Law, but through the righteousness of Faith. 16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed. 18. Who against hope, believed in hope, that he might become the Father of many Nations, &c. 19. And being not weak in Faith, he considered not his own body now dead, &c. 20. He staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. 21. And being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him. 24. But for us also, to whom It shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Gal. 3. 6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Jam. 2. 23. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called, the friend of God.
SECT. IV.
HAving produced these Arguments from the words of Scripture▪ I shall next add some more from the nature of the thing; by which the point in hand shall be evinced.
Argument 1. To Pardon, Absolve and Justify, are acts of Jesus Christ, as King, and as Judge: By being a sacrifice and Ransom to satisfy Justice, he did not act as King or Judge: therefore by being a sacrifice and Ransom to satisfy Justice, he did not actually Pardon, Absolve, or Justify, (but only Merit Pardon, Absolution and Justification, to be given by him as King and Judge.) Two things are in the Major to be proved: The first is that pardon and Justification are Acts of Jesus Christ: And the proof shall answer them, that say, It is enough that it be an Act of God the • ather for the sake of Jesus Christ. To which I say: It would clear much of these matters to men's understandings, if they would consider this great Truth, that, As it was not man that sinned, that did by himself (naturally or legally) satisfy Justice, so it was not thought meet that man himself should receive the immediate fruit of that satisfaction; but as it was a Mediator that suffered for us, so was the world delivered over to the Mediator as Redeemer of them, as being his own, being bought with a price: and so the pardon that was immediately granted by the offended Majesty was into Christ's hand • , and not the sinners own that is, A Right of granting out pardon to them as a King-Redeemer, on terms most agreeable to his ends and interest: (with resolution not to do it equally to all, nor with equal success.) So that God as the offended Legislator of the first Law, upon satisfaction made, was reconciled, as far as the Intention of the Satisfier and satisfied did require; that is, so far as to Remit all into the Redeemers hands, and give him Power, Right and Commission to grant Pardon by a new Law, which should not be as the old which was fitted to man in perfection, but a Law of Grace, fitted to man in sin and misery, giving him a Savior and salvation on condition of mere Acceptance. (Purposing to cause his chosen infallibly to accept him.) So that though the Father as Rector according to the old Law, being satisfied, did give to the Redeemer a Right of pardoning us and delivered all things into his hand, yet the actual pardoning of us must be an act of the Redeemer himself (and the Father in and by him, as God-Redeemer) by a Promise, Covenant or Law of Grace, made as King, after the Moral being of his satisfaction. Now that Christ hath made no Act to pardon man, but the Law of Grace, promising Remission and Justification if we Repent and believe, I shall show further in due place. The second thing to be proved in the Major, is, that as Remission and Justification are acts (or an act) of Christ, so it is of Christ as King and Judge▪ I will first prove the former that Christ himself hath Received a Right of pardoning. Math. 28. 18, 19, 20. All Power is given to me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Wher Mark 16. 16. it is, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved▪ and he that believeth not shall be damned. Where we see first the fullness of his power, and that the Law, or Act of Grace and Pardon granted by that Power. Luk. 5. 24. That ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, &c. Luk. 10. 22. All things are delivered unto me of my Father. Joh. 13. 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. Joh. 3. 35, 36. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. Joh. 5. 22. to 30. For the Father Judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. Verily, Verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting l • fe, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from de • th unto life. Verily, Verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. And hath given him Authority to execute Judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the Graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the Resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, to the Resurrection of Damnation. Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both Dyed, Rose and Revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Phil▪ 2. 8, 9, 10. But what should I stand on this for, among Christians that confess Christ as Mediator, to be the King: All those texts that mention his Kingdom, and Kingly Power, prove it. See Psal. 2. All that call him Christ the Anointed, prove it. And yet what stiff perverse arguings have I heard from Learned prejudiced men, (for fear of yielding to any kind of general Redemption, if they yielded that Christ as Mediator▪ hath a Kingly Power over all) maintaining that this Power he hath as God, and not as Mediator; that is, Christ is not Christ, the King. God would have his Crucifiers affix to his Cross the Title of King. By these Texts mentioned, it is evident that Christ hath Authority and Right as Mediator to grant Pardon of sin, and that he hath made a Conditional General Act of Pardon hereupon. So that both the parts of the Major are proved together. And the nature of the thing proves it to all men that know what Pardon and Justification is. It is the Pardon of the breach of public Laws that we are speaking of, and not of private trespasses or damages.
To whomsoever it belongs to make Laws, to him it belongs to Remit offenses against those Laws: But to the Supreme Power, or Legislator it belongs to make Laws: therefore.
To whomsoever it belongs to Judge men for breach of Laws, to him it belongeth sententially to Justify him that is Justifiable. But to Christ as Judge it belongeth to Judge men: therefore, &c.
I will recite one text more that containeth all that I have said. Act. 5. 30, 31. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a Tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give Repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins, and we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Here we have first his sacrifice, then his Resurrection, then his Exaltation and Kingdom, he is become a Prince and a Savior, or a King-Savior, or Lord-Redeemer: Where note, that all his work of saving us was not on the Cross: that prepared for the rest which was to follow. He was exalted to be a Savior and Prince. And then we have the end or effect of his being exalted to be a Prince and Savior, which is to give Repentance and Forgiveness of sin. As a Prince he doth this, because it is necessarily a work of Sovereign Power, or of a Ruler or King: As a Savior he doth it, because the thing wrought in this work is our salvation, to the perfection of which it also tendeth.
Having proved the Major Proposition, I need not say much to the Minor, it being granted, for ought I can understand, by all that I have to do with; that Christ doth not pardon and justify by satisfying or meriting, directly: For as to satisfying it is past question: And Merit, is a remote cause, moving (to speak after the manner of men, as we must do) the Principal Agent: and so upon Christ's Merits, God as Sovereign did deliver up all to his Son, as Savior and Sovereign, and gave him Power to forgive sins.
Observe also, that if all this were denied (that Pardon and Justification are Acts of Christ as King) and if we granted that they are Acts of God the Father, and not of the Mediator, yet we shall confute eternal Justification as an Immanent act, thus Justification, Absolution, Pardon, are acts of God as Rector: God was not Rector from eternity; therefore, Justification and Pardon are not acts that were in God from Eternity. The Major is past question. The Minor is proved thus: A Ruler and Subjects to be ruled, are Relatives, and exist together; one cannot be before or without the other. But God had not subjects from eternity to be Ruled, certainly not man, (unless all creatures co-exist with God, not only in Eternity, but from eternity) therefore, &c.
Argument 2. Where there is no actual guilt, there can be no actual Remission or Justification. But from eternity, or the time of Christ, there was no actual guilt on any that did not then exist (or were not then conceived) therefore from eternity, or from the time of Christ's death, there could be no actual Justification or pardon of such.
The Major is proved by the definition of Remission or Justification, which ever contains guilt as the thing destroyed thereby. All Remission or Justification is a Remission of some guilt, or a Justification against or from some guilt, real (in Constitutive Justification) or charged (in sentential Justification) therefore actual Remission must be of actual guilt. Remission is a dissolving the Obligation to punishment. Guilt is the Obligation to punishment: therefore.
For the Minor, that there could be no actual guilt on us from Eternity is past doubt. Nor yet at Christ's death, when we were not in being. We were no subjects or Entities, and therefore had no Accidents or Modes.
To this two things are answered; 1. That from eternity our guilt had an Esse cognitum. I Reply, 1. That is not to Be guilt: 2. That esse, if anywhere, was in God, for there was no other subject of it, But it was not guilt, but knowledge that was in God. 3. There was no esse ab aeterno, but God himself. But God himself was not guilt 4. To be Cognitum, makes a new esse in man▪ ( viz. Rationis ) where the Object causeth. But it makes no new esse in God, with whom Objects have no Causation: therefore guilt had no true esse ut Cognitus from eternity properly so called; but a formality at most. 5. God's knowing, was a foreknowing, (Scripture so calls it): not a knowing that a man then was, or was guilty, but that he would be, or that it was futurum. Therefore man was not guilty: futurum is terminus diminuens, as to existens, and so is prae cognitum. I conclude therefore, that man was not guilty from eternity, and therefore not capable of pardon.
2. It is objected, that at Christ's death we were guilty, because we were all guilty in Adam. I Reply; When we exist, we are said first to be in Adam, and so to be guilty in Adam, as we are the progeny of him. But properly, before we exist we were not guilty: He that was not in Adam, was not guilty in Adam: They that now live on earth, were not in Adam at Christ's death: therefore they were not guilty in Adam. The Minor is plain; for, He that was not, was not in Adam: But he that now lives on earth, was not at Christ's death: therefore he was not in Adam. To be in Adam, supposeth to be. Obj. In God's account we were in him. Answ. Not so: God's account is according to truth: therefore he accounts not those in Adam that are not. Obj. All mankind sinned in Adam: therefore they were in Adam. Answ. Mankind is taken either for the human nature, or for each Individual person. And sinning in Adam, signifieth either that they personally sinned in Adam, at the time when he sinned, or else that he then committed a sin which shall begin to be theirs, when they shall exist. And so I say, that the human nature did sin in Adam, and my person as soon as existent is guilty of Adams sin, and so far may be said to have sinned in him; but my person did not as a person really or reputatively sin in him before it did exist, or was a person. Obj. If our guilt or sin were not then Reputatively in Being, how could it be laid on Christ, or Christ bear it Answ. It was not sin itself▪ or guilt in itself, the same with our Individual guilt that Christ bore. But he contracted, as it were, a guilt by his own voluntary sponsion, which he did, not because we then were guilty, but because he foreknew we would be guilty, and by that guilt liable to punishment: and therefore to prevent our punishment (not our guilt) he offered that sacrifice of himself on the Cross, on consideration whereof, our guilt, when it did exist, should be done away: Not that it did then exist, or was then done away.
2. And it must be known that all that then did exist, were actually guilty.
3. And that Christ's sacrifice was for mankind in general, the human nature being then guilty; though God did know and determine the particular personal application, and intended the pardoning of each individual Elect person by it. But there is more required to the full explication of this, then I may now stand to perform: and I remember I have spoke to it against Lud. Colvinus.
Argument 3. He that is capable of pardon, is capable of punishment. They that are now living here, were not from eternity, or from Christ's death capable of punishment (actual and personal) therefore they were not capable of pardon (actual and personal.) The Major is plain, in that guilt is an obligation to punishment: and he that is obliged to it, is capable of it. If it be due, men are capable of it. The Minor is evident, in that a non en • , is not capable of punishment. Punishment hath a subject: a non ens is no subject for it: therefore.
Argument 4. Remission of sin gives Right to Impunity. From Eternity, or at Christ's death, we had no Right given us (who are now here living) to Impunity. Therefore from Eternity or Christ's death, we had no Remission.
The Major is past doubt. The Minor I prove thus. Non-enti • , non est modus vel Accidens. Non-Entities have neither Mode nor Accident. Right to Impunity is a modus vel Accidens, and we were then non-entia: therefore.
Obj. We were Entia in Law, or in God's account.
Answ. Not so, for their Judgment is according to truth.
Obj. The children unborn may have such a Reputative Being in Law, and in the estimation of Donors, or Contractors, that they may by Deeds and Conveyances be made the subjects of right or Title.
Answ. Not so, it is no actual Right till they are actually subjects of it. And they cannot be made actual subjects by a man's conceits or suppositions. Nature is supposed in Morality. There is only an Instrument made in such Donations, or Contracts, which shall give Right when the subject is capable; Or a sign by which the will of the Donor is sufficiently signified, that on such a supposition, at such a time, such shall have Right. As in natural motions, a man that shoots an Arrow, may have irrevocably delivered it out of his own hand, when yet there is a certain space of time before it shall come to the Butt or Mark: So in these civil actions or motions, a Donor that gives a thing in diem, or a Contractor that doth Promise it in diem, may (if the Donation be Absolute) irrevocably quantum in se, part with his right, or emit the Right, or perform such an act which shall give Right quando venit dies: but donec venit dies, till the set time, the Right is not received by the Legatory, Donatory, &c. it comes not to him; and so is not his. And if it be thus in an Absolute Donation, which is in diem, much more in a Conditional, where the Reception is suspended on a Condition, Contingent in itself, and uncertain to the party that is to perform it. And especially where the subject to receive it is not yet in being. Men's Covenants in such cases, do but contain that signification of their will which shall then prove fundamentum Juris, or give Right to the child when it is born, and be entrusted in the mean time in the hands of others for them, if they shall exist.
Obj: But we have before we are in being a Jus ad Rem, though not a Jus in re, because God promised it to Christ for us, or to us in him; and it is just that God make good his Promises, and therefore we have Right to it.
Answ. I shall the rather speak to this Objection, because the late mentioned learned man builds so great a Fabric on it. 1. The things to which we are said to have Right, is, The good things purchased. Absolution from guilt and so pardon of sin, is one of the good things purchased. If this be so, all is granted that we desire, as to the point in hand. For he that hath but right to a pardon or Absolution (though it were absolutely granted in diem ) is not yet pardoned or absolved: There must be the Jus in re, before he can truly and properly be said to be pardoned and absolved. While he hath but a right to be absolved for the future, it is certain that he is not Absolved at the present. Even as he is not sanctified or glorified, that hath not the thing itself, and so a Ius in re, but only a Ius ad rem, a right to be Sanctified and Glorified. Therefore for all this (pretended) Right ad rem, none are Absolved or Pardoned from the time of Christ's death, much less from Eternity.
2. But I maintain that we had no actual right ad rem, to future Remission and Absolution from the time of Christ's death, either ipso facto upon his dying or ipso Iure, upon the Promise of the Father to the Son; yea or (which is more) ipso Iure upon the Covenant made by the Father and Son to mankind: But then we must first determine what Ius, Right is. It reacheth not our case to say that Ius est, quod justum est. It may be Just in natura rei, that such a man do such a thing, when yet no man may be said to have right to the action or its effect. At least it is Ius as existent, in some subject, to whom it is communicated, and in whom it doth as it were inhere, that we are to speak of. And we take not justum in so large a sense, as to comprehend non-injustum, as it is just for a man to pardon him that hath wronged him (according to the Law of man;) because it is not unjust, there is nothing against it: But we take it in a stricter sense.
It is one thing to be the Object of that Act which is right and just, and another thing to be the subject of Right. It is one thing to Be Right and Just; and another thing to Have Right. To be Right, as everything is that is Just, is a Relation of a lower nature then that which we treat of; being scarce more then nomine tenus, a Relation. When you say, Ius est, quod Iustum est; You denominate a Thing just: but when we say, A man hath Right to this or that, we speak of the Person, as the subject (of Adhesion or Inhesion) of that Right. It is only a Person, and not an Inanimate, or a brute, or a mere Action or Quality, &c. that is the subject of the Right that we are to speak of. Ius est effectum Tituli, vel Relatio à Titulo resultans: Titulus est fundamentum Iuris: He that hath a good Title hath Right, But omne quod Iustum est, is not Relatio resultans à Titulo. The mere Object of a Just act, or the act itself which is just, is not said to Have Right to itself or another thing; as we say, man hath right to things, si jus est, quod justum est; then to set true Landmarks is Ius: But who is it, or what, that is the subject hujus Iuris? The Land hath no Right (civil Right) to the act: The act hath not Right to itself The Agent is the subject of that quality of Justice which causeth him to do Right: but is not said to have Right to his own Act. It is therefore some second person that hath Right to that just act of the Agent: In which words it is plain that the justness or right of the Act is one thing, (a respect by which that act is denominated just) and the Right which the second person hath to that act and its effect, is another thing (A Right commonly called Civil or Legal, adherent to the person, and founded in his Title.) For an Act or Thing to be Right or Just; and for a person to Have Right by Title, are in my sense no more the same thing, then for a person himself to be righteous, and to have right to a thing. So that in the sense in question, it is not true that Omne quod Justum est, est Ius. I take Ius, Right in the person, in our case, to be that which answers Debitum in the thing: For me to have Right to the Thing, and for the Thing to be due to me, is all one. I hope I may in this case have your free leave to mention the Judgment of Grotius (and to prize it with the highest) He distinguishing between these two senses of Ius (de Iure Belli, li. 1. §. 3, 4, 5.) saith, Ius hic nihil aliud quam quod Iustum est significat; idque negante magis sensu quam agent; ut Ius sit quod injustum non est—Ab hac Iuris signification diversa est altera, sed ab hac ipsa veniens, quae ad Personam refertur: quo sensu, Ius est, Qualitas Moralis personae, competens ad aliquid juste habendum vel agendum. Personae competit hoc jus, etiamsi Rem interdum sequatur, ut servitutes praediorum, quae Iura realia dicuntur comparatione facta ad alia mere personalia: non quia non ipsae quoque personae competant. Sed quia non alii competunt quam qui rem certam habeat. Qualitas autem Moralis perfecta, Facultas nobis dicitur, minus perfecta, Aptitudo: quibus respondent in naturalibus, illi quidem actus, huic Potentia. Facultatem Iurisconsulti nomine sui appellant: Nos post hac Jus proprie aut strict dictum appellabimus. Sub quo continentur Potestas tum in se, quae libertas dicitur, tum in ali • s, ut patria, dominica: Dominium, plenum sive minus pleno, ut usus fructus, jus pignoris: Et Creditum cui ex adverso respondet Debitum.
The like distinction do other Lawyers ordinarily give, and some such Description of the personal right in question, which Grotius calls Jus proprie vel strict dictum.
Sayrus defines it, Ius est facultas aliquid faciendi, sive obt • uendi, aut in eo instituendi, vel aliquo alio modo se habendi, cui, sine causa Justa, absque injuria contraven • ri nequit. Jus ad Rem dicitur • llud, quod habetur ex aliquovinculo obligationis circa rem nobis Debitam, nondum tamen factam nostram. Ius in re dicitur quod habetur de re quae est nostra & existens: unde ad comperandum Dominium atque adeo jus in re, non satis est rem cujus Dominium sumus comparaturi, existere, sed ulterius requiritur eandem rem esse nostram, id est, nobis traditam. Sayr. Clav. Reg. li. 9. cap. 3. n. 1, 2.
Some Reasons that persuade me, that we are so far from being pardoned and absolved at Christ's death, that we had not so much as Right to be pardoned and absolved for the future absolutely in diem, are these.
1. We were not existent, and so not subjects capable of actual Right: As ourselves were only in causa▪ potentia, & esse cognitio, & volito, so only must our Right be. God might, as it were, oblige himself to give us Right when we were, and were capable of it; and so it might be said to be just that he should give it. But we did not receive it till we were, and therefore it was not ours.
2. If God had before given us Absolutely right ad rem, then he would not have after made a Conditional Grant of the same thing to us. But he did after make a Conditional grant of the same thing to us: therefore.
The Major is plain, because it would be a retracting of his former Absolute Grant: For as a flat denial would have been a total retraction, so to reduce an Absolute Gift to a Conditional, is a partial retraction: This then would seem non-justum, yea injustum, or contrary to the former engagement. I would prove this more fully, but that it is not denied.
The thing that by the foresaid Learned man is denied, is the Conditional Grant: He affirmeth that it is Absolute sub termino, and saith it is false that (the Redeemed while Infidels) are but upon Condition under Christ's Merit▪ even so far under, as that in respect of Good or Evil their Condition is alike with those under Demerit, in point of Right.
But whether Christ, Peter, Paul hold not that as true which he saith is false, and make not Faith and Repentance (or one at least,) Conditions of Justification or Salvation, I appeal to the frequent express words of the text, and to the whole world of Divines.
3. If God made over to us at Christ's death a Jus ad rem, a Right to future pardon Absolutely, then it was, either by some Promise, or signal Grant, or by mere Decree and Purpose. But by neither of these; therefore not at all. There can no other way be imagined rationally that I conceive of, unless they say that ipso facto, by accepting Christ's sacrifice, he gave us Ius ad rem, of which we shall speak anon; and now only deny it. That Decree gives not Right, is granted by most, and all that I know, (except this Learned man) that are worth the disputing with in such a point. The Immanent acts of God do Nihil ponere in objecto. That there is no signal Grant, either Vocal, or written, that gave us such a Right, must be taken for granted, till the affirmers can produce some. If there be any in Scripture, it must be either the Promise to Christ, or the Absolute Promise of the first Grace to the Elect, or the Law of Faith or Grace, giving Life to all, if they will believe. The last is Conditional, and after the Moral being of Christ's death, and therefore cannot be it: The second is also in order after the Moral being of Christ's death, and therefore if it did give us Right ipso jure, it follows not that we had it on Christ's death ipso facto. But indeed we have neither. For it is but a Declaration of God's Decree towards some in general: the subjects are neither existent, nor determinate, and therefore can receive no Right by it. If a man say, There are some poor men in this City, whom I will give such a Pension or Alms to before I die. Neither describing, nor naming any, nor determining the number in his words; it is just that this man keep his word: but no man hath received Right to the Pension hereby. Much less if he do but profess his purpose to leave a Legacy to some that shall live 100 years hence, and do not now exist.
But the first is the main ground of our Right alleged, of which (though I purposely avoid the contending with the foresaid learned man, yet because I know not any that hath said so much as he, and therefore it will be to the advantage of truth) let us examine his proofs, which in his words lie thus, after this stating of the case, The sum then of what we have to prove is, that the Merit of the Death of the Lord Jesus, hath according to the Constitution of the Father, so procured of him the good things aimed at, and intended thereby, that it is just, right, and equal, that they for whom they are so procured should certainly and infallibly enjoy them at the appointed season: and therefore unto them they have an Actual Right, even before Believing; Faith itself being of the number of those things so procured. All which I prove as followeth. 1. The very terms before mentioned infer no less. If it be Justum before their believing, that those for whom Christ died should enjoy the fruits of his death, then have they even before believing Jus, or a Right thereunto: for Jus est, quod Justum est▪
Reply. I deny the Consequence. Its reason is invalid. It may be Justum that God do it; and yet you and I, or others, be no subjects of the Ius, as receiving no Right thereby. If Right were received, it was only Christ that received it, to whom the Promise was made, and not we. He might receive a Right to Pardon us, and we receive no Right to Pardon. I desire also some clear proof of the Antecedent.
That it is right and equal that they should enjoy those fruits, is manifest. For 1. It was the engagement of the Father, to the Son, upon his undertaking to die for them, that they should so do. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12. 2. In that undertaking he accomplished all that was of him required, Joh. 17. 4.
Reply. Though it be the Consequence that I deny, yet I see not the Antecedent well proved: For to the first I say, 1. The undertaking of Christ to die for them, means either some action of the pure God-head, before the Incarnation, or some Action at or after the Incarnation. If the first, either it was from eternity, or from Adams fall or at the time when that Prophesy Isa. 53. was given out. If the first, then it was 1. before that Prophesy, and therefore that Prophesy did not give Christ his Right upon his undertaking, at least not first. 2. It was nothing but God's Decree, or some Eternal Immanent act, which is confessed by others to give no Right.
If it were at Adams fall, 1. The Prophesy Isa. 53. was not then in being neither. 2. Christ was not then Incarnate, and God could not make temporal Covenants with himself. 1. It it but spoken improperly, after the manner of men, that God makes a Covenant with God, the Father with the second person in Trinity. 2. This which is so called a Covenant, must on the ground of them whom we oppose, be acknowledged to be from Eternity▪ as being an Immanent Act in God, which cannot oriri de novo. It is therefore nothing but God's Decree or such Immanent acts that is called the Covenant between the Father and the Son, then in being; and this is confessed not to give new Right, (and to us it gives none at all.) 3. The same holdeth, if they take it to begin at the time of that Prophesy, Isa. 53. Christ being then merely God, and the God-head being uncapable of formal Covenanting, and of receiving any Right thereby. 2. And the words in Isa. 53. 10, 11. Seem rather a Prophesy, and a renewing of the Promise of a Savior to the world, then any Promise to Christ giving him a new Right. And as they concern mankind, they can give no actual Right to pardon, to particular persons; though they may give mankind in general a Right to a successful Savior. The reason is before mentioned.
But I suppose it will be said, that this Promise was not made to Christ as merely God, but as foreknown to be Incarnate, Godman. To which I say: 1. The foreknowledge of the Incarnation makes not Christ to be man, and God esteems not himself man till he is so: therefore it makes not the second Person the subject of this new Right by this Promise or Covenant, till he be Incarnate indeed. 2. If upon all this it should hold good that Christ himself did not before the Incarnation, by any formal or proper Covenant or Promise receive himself any new Right, it would be much more evident, that no man before the Incarnation received any such Right, by his Reception, and by that same Covenant. Though for my part I think that a new Right did accrue to the pure God-head; but rather on man's fall with God's Promise to Redeem him by the Son, then from the mere eternal Decree, called a Covenant between the Father and the Son. But this requires a stricter enquiry.
2. To the second proof I say, 1. We use to distinguish between the undertaking and accomplishment. Divines use to say, that upon man's fall, Christ undertook satisfaction, but it was in the fullness of time that he accomplished it. How therefore he accomplished it in the Undertaking, I do not well see. 2. But that he did perfectly accomplish what he undertook, I easily grant, as the ground of my hope: but that proves not a Right thence redounding to the human nature before it did exist.
Lastly, I desire that none of this may be so understood, as if I denied that which we commonly call the Covenant between the Father and the Son, or the Right redounding to Christ thereby: Nay I think this Covenant or Law with the Mediator, to deserve a peculiar place in the body of Divinity, as of great moment, as I have elsewhere said: But the main thing I insist on is, that when Christ is a capable subject in his humanity of such Covenantright, yet we are not thereby made the subject of it.
2. That which is merited and procured for any one, thereunto he for whom it is procured, certainly hath a Right. That which is obtained for me, is mine in actual Right, though not perhaps in actual Possession. The thing that is obtained, is granted by him of whom it is obtained, and that unto them for whom it is obtained.
Reply. All this is as easily and confidently denied as affirmed. A thing is procured For a man, either only finaliter, so as that man's good is the end of the procurement; or subjectively, so as it is procured into that man's hands or possession, as the subject of the Right or thing. In the latter sense, I deny that ever Christ procured pardon for us now living; so as that we should be the subjects of it, or right to it, when he died: In the former sense, I yield that Christ did procure it finally for our good, and require some proof, that this makes us the subjects of that right. If a man contract with you, to give your horse so much Provender every day, I do not think that your horse hath any actual Right by it to his Provender: And if a King agree with you to be General of an Army for the reducing of a Country of Rebels, and give you power to grant a general pardon to all that will come in, and secretly agree with you to use such means with certain men named, that they shall infallibly come in and be pardoned; I will not believe without proof, that any one of these men hath a Right to pardon, upon this Contract between you and the King, no nor upon the general act of pardon, which is much more.
In some sense or other, that is a man's, which is procured for him: In saying it is procured for him, we say no less. If this then be not in respect of Possession, it must be in respect of Right.
Reply. 1. I confess this is as probable a way to make good your assertion, as you could devise. In some sense or other, is so large a word, that you may say what you will with that Caution. In some sense or other man is God; and that is yours, which indeed is none of yours.
2. But in the sense as custom hath taught men to use these words, I say, that If a thing be merely For you finaliter, it is never the more yours subjective. You may have neither Dominion of, nor right to that good which may be for you. It might easily have been foreseen that somebody in the world would require better proof of this then bare affirmation.
Now all the fruits of Christ's death are obtained and procured by his Merit, for them, for whom he died. He obtains for them eternal Redemption. Heb. 9. 12. Purchasing them with his own blood. Acts 20. 28. Heb. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1 18. Gal. 1. 4. Rev. 14. 3, 4.
Reply. 1. All fruits of his death, are not procured for every man for whom he died He procured not the same measure of Grace, Illumination, Sanctification, for me, as for some others: Nor the same freedom from temptations, sickness, malicious enemies, &c. Nor did he peocure Faith infallibly to be given to all for whom he died, as he did for his Elect. • . As is said before, he peocured if for us as the finis cui, (though God be the ultimate end) but not for us, as the subjects of present Right, till he should in due time and order convey a Right unto us.
The very nature of Merit described by the Apostle, Rom. 4. 4. infers no less. Where Merit intercede • , the effect is reckoned as of debt. That which is my due debt, I have a Right unto. The fruits of the death of Christ, are the issues of Merit (bottomed on God's gracious Acceptation) and reckoned as of debt.
Reply. I confess, he that merited, hath a Right unto the thing merited as of Debt. But we that go on lower Principles then you, dare not say to God, Lord, I have merited salvation in Christ, therefore it is mine of debt. I do not think you are Christ: nor that you were in Christ when he Merited: nor that you merited in him. What then though Christ hath of Debt a Right to Pardon and save you? Will it follow that you have of debt, (and that before you believe, and before you are born) a Right to Pardon and Salvation? I shall think not, till I see better proof.
He for whom a ransom is paid, hath a Right unto his liberty by virtue of that payment.
Reply. All unproved, and by me unbelieved. If you pay a sum to the Turk for a 1000 slaves thereby buying them absolutely into your own power; I do not believe that they have anymore Right to freedom then they had before: though you have Right to free them, if you please. They are now your own: you may do with them as you will. Or if you resolve to free them, that gives them no Right. If a Prince pay a ransom for some Traitors to the King his Father, thereby purchasing to himself a Dominion (or Propriety) over them, so that they are absolutely his; though both Father and Son agree that all or some of these shall be so dealt with, as that their deliverance may be certain, yet I think it gives them no more Right to it then they had before. Negatio juris est injuria. I do not think that any Elect person could say, God did him wrong, if he did not pardon him before he was born, or while he was an Infidel.
3. 2. Pet. 1. 1. The Saints are said to obtain precious Faith, through the righteousness of God. It is a righteous thing with God, to give Faith to them for whom Christ died; because thereby they have a Right unto it: Faith being amongst the most precious fruits of the death of Christ, by virtue thereof becometh their due for whom he died.
Reply. 1. May it not be righteous with God, that we obtain it, unless we ourselves have Right to it before we obtain it? That should have been proved: Yours, because they have a Right to it, is an addition of your own, having no word that you show us in Scripture to sustain it, nor anything in reason that I have yet heard of.
2. Though the Text understood in your sense, be nothing that I see, for your Cause, yet I see no proof nor reason that it should be so understood. I find in Expositors these several Expositions of it besides yours.
1. As Faith is called Pretious, from the excellency of its object, Christ and Glory. So it is said to be by the righteousness of God in the same respect, viz. as precious, and in respecting the object; because God hath Promised Christ and Glory to all Believers▪ and he is true of his Promise.
2. Others say, It is by the righteousness of God in that same promise, as that promise being the object, causeth our Faith: we knowing God to be true of his promise, do believe him.
3. Our new Annotations, and many others, mention a third, making the Righteousness of God to be put for the bounty of God, as oft in Scripture.
4. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Many take as not respecting the efficient cause, but the Object: God hath given us a precious Faith in his righteousness: or a Belief in Christ's righteousness for salvation. Diodates words only I will repeat, viz. Whose foundation and object is Christ's Righteousness; which comprehends all that he hath done and suffered for his: Others expound the word Righteousness for Mercy, and Goodness, or for Loyalty in keeping Promises.
4. The Condition of persons under Merit and Demerit, in respect of Good and Evil, is alike. The proportion of things requires it. Now men under Demerit, are under an Obligation to Punishment: and it is a Righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them. 2 Thes. 1. 6. It being the Judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of Death. Rom. 1. 32. They then who are under Merit, have also a Right unto that whereof it is the Merit.
To be under Merit, is a stretching word: but if there must be any force in the Comparison to be under Merit, must signify to be Really, or Reputatively the Meritors of that good; or that we be the subjects of that Merit, as we are of the Merit of evil here compared to it. But how easy had it been to fore-see that we would deny, either non entia, or Infidels to be so under Merit; yea or any man living▪ though a Believer! And who can find here a word of proof of any of this? For my part I would neither believe it for a world, nor practice according to such principles. I durst not go to the holy God with such a sacrifice, and say, Lord, the proportion of things requires it, that my Condition, while I was a wicked unbeliever, should be alike to Good, as is the Condition of Reprobates to Evil, as to Merit: I deserved salvation while I was an Infidel, as well as they deserve Damnation. Then God should have done as much injury in damning us, as he had shown mercy in saving them. Then it seems you would not say to God, Thou mightest have justly cut me off in my unbelief, and cast me into hell: but contrarily, Thou couldst not justly have done it. And whether under such perfect Merit you think God doth not wrong you, if he inflict on you the least Castigatory penalty I know not! And may you not as fairly say, Lord, I have merited as well, not to continue a sinner, under any of thine anger, any penal suffering, to die, to lie in the dust till the Resurrection, (in my body ) &c. as the Reprobates deserve to be damned. The Lord save me, and all his Church from such principles. I cannot swallow and digest them, any easier then I can cease to be a Christian. I cannot chose but say clean contrary, Lord, I deserve thy wrath, and am by nature a child of wrath, and thou mightest justly have c • st me into Hell from the womb. 2▪ Nay to this day, should I think that I were under no obligation to punishment, I must needs think I am uncapable of pardon, and so must forbear to beg pardon, or to take myself beholden to God for any renewed pardon▪ nor that I ought to use the means for any. Men united to Christ by Faith, have a better claim to Christ's Merits, then Infidels, though Elect: And yet I thank God I do not use to hear▪ Ministers in prayer (nor any Christians) talk to God in this language, and say, We have by Merit as good right to heaven, as the Reprobate to hell. Nay more, I doubt not to prove, that Christ never communicates his Merit in its formal nature, to any man; but only the effects of it: He gives us his Merit, as a man gives a prisoner 1000. li. which indeed he never shown him in itself, or gave him, but only gave it the King for his ransom. It was not I that Merited but Christ, and I am no further under it, then to partake of the fruits of it, and that is by Degrees, in what time and measure he seeth meet to give them out to me: which is not all at once, nor all perfectly, till another world.
It is not of any force to say, that they are not under that Merit, but only upon Condition. For this is 1. False. 2. With God this is all one, as if there were no Condition, at the season and term appointed, for the making out the fruit of that Merit, as hath been declared.
I confess it is of small force, till they know what you will mean by under Merit; 1. If you will mean, that we are esteemed the Meritors, I confess it is false. For this is never true, or made out either Conditionally or Absolutely: no more then that you shall be Christ. Yet this seems plainly your meaning; but the proof we want.
2. If you mean it of the effects of Christ's Merits, they are of several sorts, and he that shall say, they are all given to us Conditionally, I would say as well as you, it is false.
3. But if it be the special fruit that we have in question, viz. Absolution from guilt, or actual right to it, I say that is given on Condition, or else If is not a Conditional term If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus▪ and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10. And to say this is false, weighs as much with me▪ as your former reasonings to prove it false, which may not now axamine.
And where you say, With • od this is all one at the season, &c. I Reply. 1. And do you confess it is not all one with him before the season or term? 2. The question is rather what it is with us▪ then with God when we inquire whether we be the subjects of that Merit and Right. 3. It is not true nor proved, that it is all one with God. God seeth things as they are, and therefore seeth not divers things as one: nor a Conditional Grant as an Absolute. 4. It is true that the Elect shall be as certainly Justified by the Conditional Grant, as if it had been Absolute: but this is so far from making them all one, that it more sets forth the Omniscience and Wisdom of God, that can bring man to his appointed ends, by means most fit to his nature, and as infallibly attain his ends by Contingent means, as by naturally necessary.
Neither yet to Object that it is not their Own Merit, but of another which respects them, that other being their Surety, doing that whereby he Merited on their behalf: Yea in their stead, they dying with him: though the same in them could not have been meritorious, they being at best mere men, and at worst very sinful men.
Reply. Here is the heart of the whole Controversy, and (if I may have leave to speak as confidently as yourself,) the Root of many dangerous errors, I think very plainly subverting the Christian Religion. I confess with comfort, that Christ was our Surety, and merited on our behalf, and in our stead in some sense, especially that he satisfied in our stead: But that we died with him when he died, I deny: I suppose you would by this intimate that he did not only Merit in our stead, but Reputatively so in our person, as that ipso facto his Merit was theirs, for whose sake it was performed, and they reputed to have merited in, by, and with him. This opinion destroyeth the substance of all Religion, as I hope to manifest upon fitter occasion. Though Christ did Merit for us, and suffer in our stead, yet it was not as our Delegate, nor did we do it in him in a Civil and Law sense, anymore truly then in a natural. Nor is the sinner reputed to have done all that his voluntary Sponsor doth for him, nor is the benefit of it ipso facto his, but on what terms the Sponsor and the Creditor or Rector shall please to convey it.
5. A Compact or Covenant being made of giving life and salvation upon the Condition of Obedience, to certain persons, that Condidition being completely fulfilled, as it was in the death of Christ, claim being made of the Promise according to the tenor of the Compact, and the persons presented for the enjoyment of it, surely those persons have an actual Right unto it.
Reply. If the Covenant had been made with us, and we had performed the Conditions, or another for us, (so be it the Promise had been made to us, upon such performance of another,) then all this had been true that you say. But a Promise to Christ that he shall have all things delivered into his hands, and have Authority to forgive sin, together with an Agreement whom he shall eventually call and pardon, this gives no man Right. That which is promised to another for our good, is not promised To us, though For us; nor giveth us any Right. For what you say of presenting the persons for the enjoyment of it, I understand not. 1. Did Christ present us to enjoy it before we had a being? 2. Or all the years of our Infidelity? why then did we not enjoy it? Or what was that which you call presenting us? 3. But if it were only when we received Faith that he so presented us for enjoyment, then it seems we are Absolved but in the same moment as we believe. And then our dying with Christ when he died, did not Absolve us, nor give us Right. If the person must be so presented for enjoyment first, stay but a moment longer (and that not of time but of nature) and let him believe first, and we are nearer to agreement. Yet do I know of no presentment before Faith▪ that gives us Right, but much to the contrary.
That all this is so, see Isa. 49. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Psal. 2. 2, 4, 5. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12. Joh. 17. 3. and 2. 21. Heb. 2.
Reply. Whether any word in any of these texts give the least countenance to your assertion, I am content the Reader judge when he hath perused them. They prove that Christ's death shall be successful; but for any word that we have a Right to the benefits before we believe, I mean, to the benefits following Faith, such as are Absolution and Pardon, he must have better or worse eyes then I▪ that can find it. Much less, that we are actually Absolved from guilt of death, and Obligation to Punishment. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, &c. Rev. 22. 14. So much for that Argument.
Argument 5. If we are pardoned or Absolved from guilt from Eternity, because it was Decreed, or at the time of Christ's death, because it was then Merited, then all other Relations Decreed or Merited should be from Eternity, or from the time of Christ's Merits: But the Consequent is so false, that I need not say anymore to manifest it: therefore▪
God Decreed from Eternity that David should be King, and Aaron Priest, and both Types of Christ: Yet were they not such from Eternity: Nor yet from the time of Christ's undertakeing to Merit it. If a man that was Decreed to have two or three wives successively, were husband to them all at once; Quaere, Whether the Law will reach him for his life? Yet so it must be, if all his Relations are from eternity, because Decreed from eternity, or from Christ's dying, because then Merited. Was Edward the 6th King of England, or Elizabeth Queen from the time of Christ's death? Was Mr. O. Mr. E. Mr. C. or any now living, a Pastor of a Church when Christ died? I hope none will say that God Decreed not these, or that Christ Merited them not.
The Consequence is plain from the parity of Reason. If it be eo nomine, because Decreed or Merited that one is eternal or from Christ's death, then other Relations that are Decreed and Merited must be so too.
I put both together, because I deal with men that somewhat differ. Some do not so openly or plainly own the Eternity of Absolution as others do. The forementioned learned man saith; For the foundation of this Right, seeing that before the Consideration of the death of Christ, it is not, from thence it must needs be: But whether this Consideration of Christ's death be not from eternity, and so our Merit and Right from eternity, in his judgment, I am uncertain: By some passages I should hope better: but these words make me doubtful; That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right, to the thing concerning which the Decree is, is so far from being a sufficient proof of the Major, that it is in itself very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the Dee • ee gives not being and existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right should from it arise unto that thing by virtue thereof, is not so clear. Right is but Jus; Jus est, quod Justum est: If it be Just or Right that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a Right thereunto. Now supposing the Decree of God, that a man shall by such means have such a thing, is it not just, equitable and condecent unto righteousness that he should have it?
Reply. 1. It seems then we had our Jus ad rem from eternity: And then Christ did not Purchase or Merit it: for he is not the cause as Mediator of eternal effects ( à parte ante. ) And if we had Right from Eternity to Justification and Salvation, and that Absolutely sub Termino, as you speak, to be ours, then when the term comes, we shall have it, as having Right to it before. And what doth Christ's death cause by interposing? If you say, that it is not Decreed to us, or by Decree given us Absolutely, but on condition of Christ's Merits; I Answ. 1. Take heed of making conditional Decrees, so as that anything be a condition of Decreeing. 2. If our Jus ad Rem be but conditional, then actually it is none. 3. If Christ's death be no condition of the Decree, it can be no condition of the conjunct effect, which is eternal too, if we have a Right from eternity. 4. Or if you judge that we have a Right to Life from Eternity, without any procurement of Christ's Merits, and that it is the Jus in re only that his Merits are the condition of; yet remember these things. 1. That you suppose a condition must tendere ad incertum, and therefore that with God there can be no proper Conditions: How then can Christ's death or Merits be a condition? how can God make a grant of such Right to us, on this condition of Obedience, as you before expressed? 2. We hope Christ's death was not a mere condition, but a meritorious cause: And how it can be so on your grounds, is past my reach to know. 3. And what need it, or can it cause? The Right to Life we are conceited to have before (by many at least:) the Right in life needs no more but ut veniat dies to cause it, if we had it Absolutely sub termin • . And was this it that Christ died for, to procure us a Right to that which we had Right to before? Upon Christ's dying it is still but Jus ad Rem, till the term come: and then our first Right would turn to a Jus in re, when we have the thing itself. If you say that God who Decreed the end, Decreed the means, and though he gave us the Right to Life by Decree, yet he Decreed that Christ's death should interpose as the means to the Jus in re; I Answ. What means is it? To interpose, is but to comein such an order; but what doth it to the effect? Condition it can be none, if there be no condition with God. •• ause it can be none, of that which wants no cause but time to its production. Nor do I see, according to you, how it can cause meritoriously, if it cause not with God from whom it Meriteth. You did therefore more cautelously then satisfactorily take up with a word that will bear many interpretations, saying, It affecteth▪ God's Justitiam Regiminis, and there you place its procuring efficacy; which words I like well, if they were cleared, and well reconciled with the rest.
But you grant it as an old Rule, That the Decree gives not being and ex • stence to the things concerning which it is. • demand then, Did God Decree to give us Right to Life, or not? If not, then we have it not as Decreed. If he did, then the Decree caused not the being of it: and then it had no being, for it had no other cause from Eternity.
I speak all this more to the Defense and Confirmation of my Argument, then your confutation: For in doing that I should take another course, and deny the Definition of Jus, in the case in hand; and prove both, that if God should not perform his Decree, it would not be injustice in him, or injury, (which is contrary to Jus, as in our case) but only mutability, (as Durand imagined also, in case he should not perform his word, which is much more;) and that neither the Purposes of God or man, do convey any Right to another, of the benefit purposed: no nor a bare discovery of that purpose neither, nor that which some call a Pollicitation, as distinct from a Promise; but only such a Promise, Grant, or Law, whose nature and use is to transfer or convey Right.
1. If man hath a Right to all that God hath Decreed to him, then he hath Right to punishment, even to Hell from Eternity, before ever he sinned in himself or in Adam: yea before he was: and this punishment is his due: but that is not true.
2. I know most of those that are against me, will maintain that God Decreed from Eternity, that men should commit all the sins that ever are committed, ipso permittente, & voluntatem ad actum, praemotione immediata efficari praedeterminante: and so sin was due to all sinners from Eternity, when they were no men: or they had then Right to it: but that is not true.
3. No Right is conveyed to another, but by some Transient act, (for it doth make a change on the object, ponendo novam relationem: ) But God's eternal purpose is not such an act; therefore, &c.
4. The Transient act which makes such a Relative change, (in giving Right,) must do it by laying a real foundation, whence that Relation must result: but the eternal purpose lays none such: (But the Promise or Grant of the Law of Grace, is that foundation, Conditione praestita, ubi cond • tionalis est prom • ssio. ) That which giveth not Title, gives not Right: but &c. Much more might easily be said to the great dishonor of this new unheard of opinion (till now so far as I know) that men have Right to that which is Decreed them. In a word, It confounds the nature of purposes and promises, destroys the main use, if not the Essence of all Laws, Promises and Contracts, and so subverts all Government. Divine and human; and civil commerce among men. I may be bound to God to perform my purposes (yet not always) but if hereby I give Right to men to all that I purposed them, all the world is ignorant as well as I.
Argument 6. If we are Pardoned, Justified or Absolved from Guilt, either from Eternity, because it was then Decreed, or from Christ's death, because it was then Merited; then would all real effects of Decree, and of Christ's death, (as well as the Relative) be from Eternity, or from Christ's death: But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent. If we are therefore absolved, because our Absolution is Decreed or Merited, then on the same Reason we are Sanctified, raised from the dead, glorified, because these are Decreed and Merited, there being the same cause and reason of both.
Argument 7. If neither from Eternity, nor the time of Christ's undertaking, nor any time before we were born, or believed, we were made Heirs of the Promise and Kingdom, then were we not Pardoned, Justified, or Absolved from the guilt of death. But that the Antecedent is true, I prove by these Scriptures following. Heb. 11. 7. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen, as yet moved with fear, prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith. Tit. 3. 7. That being Justified by his Grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal Life. Gal. 3. 26, 29. For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the Promise. Gal 1. 7. And if a Son, then an heir of God through Christ. v. 30. The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir, &c. 28. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of Promise. Rom. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. That he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also. And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, &c. For the Promise that he should be Heir of the world, was not to Abraham or his seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. For if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect. Rom. 8. 16, 17. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Ephes. 3. 6. That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel. Jam. 2. 5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in Faith, Heirs of the Kingdom, which God hath Promised to them that love him?
The Consequence is of apparent verity, seeing the word Heirs expresseth their Right. He therefore that is not Heir of the Promise, or according to the Promise, or heir of the Kingdom, cannot have Right in Remission, Absolution from guilt, or Justification: and therefore cannot be Pardoned, Absolved, Justified.
Argument 8. If the Elect were all Justified or Absolved in Christ as the public person, or having themselves satisfied or merited in, and by him (which is the common foundation of the adverse opinion) then they are Justified or Absolved without any Pardon of sin▪ merited by Christ for them: But the Consequent is false, and destructive to the Christian Religion: therefore the Antecedent is not true.
The Consequence (which only needs proof) is thus manifest to be sound.
1. Christ was Justified, or Absolved without pardon: therefore if the Elect were Justified or Absolved in Christ as the public pers • n, as having themselves satisfied or merited in him, then they are▪ Absolved or Justified without pardon: For the same Absolution cannot toto coelo differ in nature from itself: Christ was declared Just and Absolved without pardoning him one sin, as to the undertaken Punishment
2. They that have either perfectly obeyed, or satisfied, must be Justified or Absolved without pardon (being capable of none, as not needing it) and that in the most rigid Justice. If therefore we have either perfectly obeyed or satisfied in Christ, we must be Absolved or Justified, without pardon, in strictest Justice.
The strictest Justice can require no more then all that is due. Nor can deny an A • quittance or Justification to him that hath paid or perform •• • ll that was due.
Obj. Had we paid or performed it in our own persons, then we had needed no pardon, but seeing Christ paid it for us, it must be pardoned to us, though not to him.
Answ. This is very true; and the ordinary Doctrine of Protestants, yea of Scripture. But then observe, that this affirmeth, that we paid it not in our own persons. And this must be true, of a person in a civil sense, or Law sense, as well as a natural: That Debt which a man pays by his servant or other Delegate, he pays himself. It was done by his person in Moral, Civil, or Law▪ sense; though not by his natural person. It being therefore the Action of Laws (or according to Laws) that we have to speak of, it must be a Legal person that we must speak of. If therefore Christ had so Merited, or satisfied in your person, and you in and by his, that Reputatively the Law, or Lawgiver, did judge it the Idem, and not only the Aequivalens, and did esteem the person the same, and judge you to have merited or satisfied in Christ, then no Justice could deny you present Justification or Absolution without further pardon: though the natural person of Christ and • s was not the same.
But indeed it could not be, that Christ paid the Idem, the same that was due in Law: For that was supplicium ipsius Deliquentis, and not of another: Nor could it be that you should merit or satisfy Legally in Christ, he doing it in your person. For though in payment of debts to a Creditor (which is not our case) the Law admitteth payment by a Delegate, and taketh the person as the same, looking only at the Debt (for what a man's Instrument doth, himself doth) yet in case of Obedience and Punishment, the Law determineth of the person, as well as the thing due, and alloweth not a Delegation, or doing or suffering by an Instrument, or in the natural person of another: and therefore dum alius solvit, simul aliud solvitur.
And though God as Rector, supra Legem, as above Law, doth in our case, allow and Accept of a Sponsor, and kind of substitute of punishment, viz. that Christ should suffer in our stead; yet not as in our person, so as we do Morally or Reputatively satisfy or merit in or by him: but in the person of a Mediator; that his Sacrifice, Satisfaction, Merit, may be a valuable Consideration, on which God may pardon our sins, in his time, and on terms agreeable to his honor and ends of Government. I take this to be the truth, about the nature of our Redemption by Christ, between the two Extreams of the Socinians (who deny satisfaction by Christ) and the Antinomians, (who say, that we satisfied, or obeyed and merited, or both, in and by Christ;) Two Errors of so great moment, subverting the very foundation, and whole frame of Christian Religion, that I confess my soul abhorreth them, though in all tolerable differences I can go far in bearing with dissenters. And I wonder that some Divines do look on this so lightly, as if it were but a verbal or inconsiderable difference.
Obj. But yet, though it be true that God was bound in Justice presently to Absolve and Justify us without further pardon, when we had paid all the debt (either of Obedience or Penalty) in and by Christ; it followeth not, that we are not pardoned: For God did pardon us by translating the Punishment from us to another: To put another into our person, was God's pardoning act: He might have inflicted it on ourselves, and he laid it on Christ: therefore we are not Justified without pardon of sin.
Answ. This is the answer I confess, of some men, whose parts and worth one would think should promise much better. They yield to, and maintain what I said before; that we did satisfy and merit in and by Christ, and that God could not in Justice deny us present Absolution or Justification without any further pardon, (except in the after Manifestation of this to our consciences.) But then they think this act of Deputation, or change of the person is a sufficient pardon. To which I say.
1. I did not mention the exclusion of all pardon, in my Consequence; but only of all pardon merited by Christ's death, or satisfaction, or by any act of obedience, which he is supposed to do in our persons, and we in him. And according to this desperate Doctrine which I gain-say, there can be no pardon merited for us by Christ. For this change of the person, which is mentioned, was both naturally and morally (according to their supposition) antecedent to Christ's satisfaction and merits: we are supposed first to be made or reputed one person with Christ, and then to have satisfied and merited in him: That is, to be first pardoned, and then to have satisfied and merited.
2. But I deny that this deputation or change of the person, (if it were true) were any actual pardon of sin. The definition is not the same: therefore the thing is not the same. Indeed it might presuppose a pardon (according to their grounds) but is not a pardon itself: For it is not a dissolving the obligation to Punishment, nor a Giving us Right to Impunity.
3. Doth not this make God's punishing of us in Christ to be unjust? For if we were pardoned before, how can it be just that we should pay all the debt after? or suffer what was pardoned? For if it be we in Moral or Law-sense that satisfy, then it is the same person that was pardoned that satisfieth.
4. And if we did satisfy in Christ, then nothing was pardoned to us; if the person were Legally the same.
5. But suppose these two last answers may be put by, (by saying that is a pardon to our natural person, though not our legal; or some such frivolous reply) yet can Christian Religion bear it, or Christian ears endure to hear it, that we have no pardon of sin, which was purchased or merited by Christ's death and satisfaction, but was fr • ely given before, by the change of persons? some more I shall say of this in the next.
Argument 9. If we did merit or satisfy (as aforesaid) in Christ, then must our Absolution and Deliverance be ipso facto from that moment so completed, that no Justice can continue us under the least punishment, or inflict the least upon us: But the Consequent is false, and desperately subverteth Religion, and blasphemeth God's providence: therefore.
It is easy to argue à facto ad Jus, in all God's Works he doth it: therefore it is Just▪ is an unquestionable consequence. But that God doth inflict castigatory Punishments on Believers; and then doubtless no less on Infidels and wicked men, though Elect, is a truth so plain, that while Scripture is believed, or providence acknowledged, all the Antinomians on earth shall not prevail against it.
Is it no penalty for God to hate all the Workers of Iniquity? to abominate their Prayers? to deny them all sanctifying Grace? to continue them children of wrath, without hope, without God in the world? Under the power of Satan? yea to be the children of the Devil? 1 Joh. 3. 10. Act. 26. 18. and to be led Captive by him at his will, as his bond-slaves? 2 Tim. 2. 26.
He that can make men believe that these men are under no punishment, may next make them believe that there is no God, or Providence, or Hell. Yet is it undeniable that the Redeemed undergo all this, and much more (which I have before mentioned and proved at large) so much to the Minor.
For the Consequence of the Major, it is evident in itself. No Justice can either 1. Continue him under Punishment.
2. Or inflict new punishment.
3. Or delay his merited happiness, who hath himself in Lawsense, fully undergone all the Penalty that was due, and hath fully merited that happiness. He that hath paid all, oweth nothing: and he that owes nothing, cannot justly be continued in Prison. He that hath born all the penalty, or is perfectly Justified or pardoned is guilty of nothing. And he that is guilty of no fault, cannot justly be punished with the smallest penalty. As Dr. Twisse truly saith, It may be affliction and torment, but it is no punishment, unless it be for sin and guilt. These men therefore that feign us to have suffered, satisfied and merited in or by Christ, and that for all the sins of our life; and yet that God doth keep us, or suffer us to continue under the power of Satan, and his own wrath; yea, were it but under chastisements, and imperfections, and remnants of sin, and doubts and troubles of conscience, they do lay to his charge, that which they durst not do to the sinful Rulers of the Sons of men, whom they account Just and Honest. Gen. 18. 23, 25. Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee to do after this manner: to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do Right? Rom. 3. 5, 6, 7, 9. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh Vengeance? ( I speak as a man) God forbid: For then how shall God judge the world? &c. Why am I also judged as a sinner? &c. They are all under sin. 19. What the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
I may well argue therefore from God's Justice, thus: They who do justly suffer God's anger▪ and several punishments for sin, did not perfectly obey or satisfy in or by Christ: But the Elect before and after conversion do Justly suffer, &c. therefore, &c. The justness of their sufferings for sin, hath been constantly acknowledged by the Saints of God. Yea Ezra 9. 13. saith, And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespasses, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less then our iniquities deserve, &c. Daniel saith, 9. 7, 11. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us, Confusion of face, as at this day, &c. Therefore the Curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words which he spake against us, &c.
Yea, I will argue higher yet. They whose damnation to hell were Just if God should execute it, have not perfectly obeyed or satisfied in and by Christ: But the Damnation of many of the Redeemed (at least, of all the unconverted) were Just: therefore.
The Major is plain, if we speak of Damnation in proper sense, as a punishment, and not as a mere Torment; for I will not deny but God might do what he would with his own creature, antecedently to his Rector-ship and Covenants. The Minor is the express confession of all humble Christians that ever I spoke with, or heard pray (that mentioned these matters) that God might justly have damned them before conversion (yea and in some respect, since.) And the Apostle speaking of those that say, Let us do evil that good may come, or that slandered them as so saying, saith of them. Whose damnation is just. Rom. 3. 8. But this is a sin that a Redeemed or Elect man may commit, and the Apostle knew not all the non-Elect from the Elect: therefore the Redeemed may so sin that their Damnation were Just: But that any man's Damnation can be just, that hath either perfectly obeyed, or else made perfect satisfaction for his sins, is past my apprehension. Yea the Doctrine opposed, accuseth and overthroweth all Penal Laws and Executions of Magistrates, and consequently all Government, and all Common-wealths. For if we have made perfect satisfaction in Christ for all sin, then we owe no more punishment: and then God cannot inflict any by himself or his Instruments. All power is of God; and all Legislation and Judgment of men, is by God's Commission, if just; Magistrates are God's Officers and • nstruments. If God's Justice therefore have nothing against us, man's can have nothing: For man's in God's. He cannot grant a Commission to a Magistrate▪ to punish the innocent, or one that Justice hath nothing against. The Judgment is the Lord's. He ruleth the earth as sovereign, by his Officers. Melan • thon saith, Exam. p. 680. That it is God's moral Law that obligeth all men, and ordaineth corporal punishments in this life, against those that commit external faults, and that God executeth them by Magistrates. Vide G. Soh. Thes. c. 8. p. 31. So that I must confess, that if this Doctrine of our perfect solution in Christ, and that of the debt itself do not necessarily overthrow all Government, I do not understand it as I thought I had done.
Argument 10. If we are Justified or Absolved by Meriting or Satisfying in Christ at his death, as aforesaid, then God would not have given us the benefits by Conditional Promises, and have added threatenings of damnation to us, if we rebel: But thus God hath done in his Word; therefore, &c.
Or thus: If it be just with God to convey the pardon of sin, and Right to salvation by Conditional Promises, with threatenings annexed: then we are not Justified or Absolved by satisfying or meriting in or by Christ: but it is Just with God, &c. therefore, &c.
The reason of the Consequence is, because (as is said) to him that hath satisfied or merited fully, the liberation or benefit is due ipso facto, presently and absolutely: therefore to make a Law which shall impose Conditions for the obtaining it, and keep us without it till those Conditions are performed, and threaten us with damnation if we perform them not, this seems not equitable, when the thing was our own before, or presently and absolutely due.
As for them that say, It is false that these benefits are given upon any Condition. When I have nothing else to do, I will answer them in folio: till then let this suffice; Read the Scriptures.
Argument 11. If we are Justified or Absolved by satisfying perfectly, or meriting in or by Christ, as aforesaid, then we are as righteous while we are • nfidels, as when we are Christians; and while wicked, as when we are Godly. But the consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.
We speak of Righteous here, without equivocation, in the same sense, viz. as Relative, as opposite to Guilty, and to having no Right to the Reward The reason of the Consequence is evident: No man can be more just then the most perfectly just. He that hath in Christ perfectly merited or satisfied for all his sins, is most perfectly Just, (in this Relative sense;) therefore no man can be more just: therefore an Elect Infidel or persecutor, being most Just before, can be no more just after.
I suppose they whom I gainsay, will own it all, as they that have read Dr. Crisp, and Town, and Saltmarsh, may soon see. But so will I never do while the Sun of Scripture shines so bright, for the discovery of its evil • ; telling us so much of the righteousness of Faith, and which is by Faith, and that Faith is Imputed to us for righteousness • , with much more, which cries shame against this opinion: as most of all the texts before cited will bear witness.
Argument 12. If we are Justified or Absolved by satisfying or meriting in or by Christ, as aforesaid, then we are as righteous while Infidels, as Christ himself. (I mean with this Relative righteousness, which consisteth in a not-guiltiness: The Law hath no more against us, nor the Judge, then against him) But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.
He that dare say that every Redeemed or Elect Infidel, whoremonger, murderer, &c. is Relatively thus, as righteous as Christ, shall not borrow my tongue to pronounce it. Nay, he that will say, the best Saint on earth is as righteous as Christ, or no more guilty or obliged to any punishment, is not of my Religion. I know the Antinomians are not ashamed of this assertion, (and I know how the Papists cavil with all Protestants, as if they said so too:) But 1. God's Threatenings and holy Laws. 2. And his executions on body and soul in this life. 3. And the witness of men's own consciences. 4. And the Spirits convincing the world of sin and misery, shall shame and suppress this proud assertion in despite of the Father of lies, and his stoutest Instruments.
Argument 13. If we are Justified, pardoned or absolved from eternity, or from the time of Christ's death (on the foresaid grounds, or any other,) then may we not with any • nfidels or wicked men, in preaching or private conference, convince or persuade them of their misery, as being under guilt, or not pardoned or absolved, or as having no Right to salvation. But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.
No man must preach that which he cannot possibly know whether it be true or false: But no man that should tell any Infidels of the said misery, can tell whether it be true or false: therefore they may not preach it. I suppose they whom I gainsay will grant all this: And what a preaching then we may expect from Antinomians, and to what advantage to poor hardened sinners, you may judge. They can tell them no more of their misery, but that they are not Justified in conscience, and that it is uncertain whether they are absolved or not. It may be you Infidels have Right to salvation, and it may be not, but assurance, feeling and possession you have not: They cannot say without equivocation, you are shut up under sin, and guilty before God, in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, having no part nor lot in this matter; your damnation is just, the wrath of God abideth on you, you are condemned already, unrighteous, the children of wrath, &c. This is Legal preaching, though to Infidels! They cannot know the Elect Infidels from the Reprobate, and therefore they cannot say they are miserable. No nor tell them how they may know it themselves neither: Though we could not tell an Hypocrite, that he is miserable, yet we can tell him how himself may know it: but so cannot they, not to the Assemblies of Heathens, nor any one of them; nor of the profanest men. Only that they want Assurance and Holyness they can tell them: but not that they want Absolution from guilt of death, and from obligation to punishment, or that they want Right to salvation. Have these men learned to difference between the righteous and the wicked, him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not? Are such Preachers as the mouth of God, that difference no more between the precious and the vile? yea that call the vile precious? Is such preaching liker to make Saints or Libertines? Make them, did I say? Rather manifest them, and confirm them in Impenitency? I bless God for it, I hear none of this preaching in our Country. I never heard one in the Pulpit tell all the profane; For ought you or I can tell, you may all be Absolved from the guilt of death, and obligation to Punishment long ago, though not as Terminated in your Consciences. And I hope some men that are of this opinion, use not to preach it, yea use to preach contrary. I have so often heard mistaken Disputers preach soundly and Orthodoxly to the vulgar, that I have loved preaching, (and specially to the vulgar) the better ever since, and disputing comparatively the less: And specially in Prayer to God, I do oft hear the Heterodox pray so Orthodoxly, that I am yet more in love with Prayer, and hope that many men practice not their ill opinions. If you would hear men speak their hearts, and that which conscience dare own, hear them in Confessions and Prayers to God. Prayers are more generally Orthodox then Sermons, and Sermons ad populum then ad clerum, and both then Disputations, and Controversal writings, among men that are warping the Antinomian way.
Argument 14. If we are Justified, Absolved, or pardoned, and have Right to heaven, from eternity, or from the time of Christ's undertaking or suffering, or before our Conversion, then no Jew, Turk, or profanest man, may lawfully either 1. Believe. 2. Or confess himself miserable, as being not absolved, justified or pardoned, or as having no Right to heaven. 3. Nor may they be humbled for any such misery: (except it be those that have blasphemed the Holy-Ghost▪ if any such know their sin:) But the Consequent is purely Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.
For the Consequence, it is most clear, seeing no man may believe or confess that which he cannot know whether it be true or false: But no whore-monger, persecutor, murderer, can (according to their Doctrine) tell whether it be true or false, that he is not absolved, pardoned, and hath Right to heaven: For they say all the Redeemed are absolved, and have such Right: and all and only the Elect are Redeemed: and what wicked man can know that he is not Elect? And therefore it must needs follow that they cannot be humbled for what they cannot know. I doubt not but the Antinomians will be ready enough to own all this; but for experienced humble converts, I need not persuade them of the evil of it: Nor will I bestow more words against it now, seeing ad populum, so many of our Divines have spoken to it so abundantly. See Shephards Sincere believer, Hookers Souls Preparation, and Vocation, &c.
Argument 15. If we are pardoned, absolved or have Right to heaven from eternity (by the Decree) or from the time of Christ's death, then may no man wicked or Godly pray for any such pardon of sin, absolution, or Right to heaven. But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.
Though such a man might pray for Justification as terminated in conscience, or the knowledge or sense of Absolution, and for Possession of heaven, and the Jus in re, yet I hope it will not easily go down with Christians, that no man may pray for the thing itself, as not having it; or that no man may pray for Right to heaven, the Jus ad rem: Believers themselves are daily to pray, Forgive us our trespasses.
The Consequence of the Major is apparently sound: For if any may pray for such Pardons, Absolution or Right to heaven, it is either the wicked or the Godly, Infidels or Believers: But neither of these may do it if their Doctrine be true. Not Infidels or any wicked men; for they know not but they may be pardoned and have Right to heaven already, and therefore can pray but for Assurance and Continuance (nor for the last neither on their grounds.) Not Believers, for they have the thing already: nay they may not pray for any such pardo or absolution, from any one particular sin which they commit after Faith: Nay they are bound, according to these men's Doctrine, to believe that they were never without such absolution, pardon and Right to heaven, and so may not so much as confess to God, that they were once under this misery while they were Infidels or unregenerate. Thus you see what prayers the Antinomian Doctrine doth require.
Argument 16. If we are Absolved from guilt, pardoned or justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or from Christ's death, then can no man lawfully either hear the word preached, read it, inquire of others, be baptized, or use any other means for that Remission, Absolution or Right to heaven, nor avoid any sin on that account, lest it should hinder them from receiving the said benefits: But the Consequent is purely Antinomian, viz. against the scope of God's Law of Grace, for man's Restauration: therefore so is the Antecedent.
The reason of the Consequence being the same with the last, I need not repeat it. By this it may appear what kind of endeavors Antinomianism directeth us to, and what kind of Christians it would make, and of what conversations. What man fearing God dare say to all the Infidels, or enemies to Godliness and civility that he comes near, You ought not to do anything for the obtaining of Absolution from guilt, and from the obligation to punishment, or for Right to heaven, or to any benefit of Christ's death, for all this is either obtained in and by Christ already, or else is not to be obtained; you are not required to do Christ's work: it is but manifestation, and Jus in re that you are to seek for.
Argument 17. If we are Absolved, Pardoned, Justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or from Christ's death, or before we believe, then the same man should at the same time be pardoned and unpardoned, absolved and condemned in Law, have Right to heaven, and have no Right: and that in respect of the same sort of pardon, absolution and Right. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent.
The Consequence is proved already: for I have proved fully that Absolution, Pardon, Justification, Right to heaven in Lawtitle, followeth Faith, and that men are in Law condemned, and unpardoned till they have Faith, and that it is not Justification merely as terminated in conscience, that Scripture calls Justification by Faith: It must therefore be that in Right of Law; for no other can it be before that, as is shown. And though I have said so much, I will here add this one Argument more.
If it were only knowledge or sense of pardon, absolution or Justification in Conscience, that were meant by Justification by Faith in Scripture, then we might as well be said, 1. To be Elected by Faith. 2. Or Redeemed quoad pretium by Faith. 3. Or created by Faith; because by Faith we come to know that we are Elected, Created and Redeemed (yea much more of the two latter, for that we were Created and Redeemed, are de fide, proper objects of Faith▪ but so is not our Election or Justification-personal:) But no Scripture saith that we are Elected, Created or Redeemed by Faith (much less so frequently and expressly as it saith we are Justified by Faith;) nor may we say so ourselves: therefore it is not knowledge or sense of Justification or Absolution that is meant.
Argument 18. If we are Absolved, Pardoned, Justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or before Faith, then we have all these before we are in Christ, or joined or united to Christ, or are made his members. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent.
The Consequence will be denied, by those that suppose we are in Christ before we believe or are born: But the word of God saith no such matter as they, but much to the contrary. We are made the Sons of God, heirs and coheirs with Christ by Faith: He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, and that is they who by not-believing, make God a Lyar. 1 Joh. 5. 12. Col. 1. 18. Christ is the head of the body, the Church: but Infidels are not of the body, the Church; for the Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium. Col. 2. 19. From Christ the head, all the body by joints and bands, having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. But Infidels are not so knit to Christ▪ nor receive nourishment nor increase. Eph. 4. 15, 16. In him which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying of itself in love. But none of this is so with Infidels, therefore they are not members, nor joined to Christ, nor he their head, actually. Eph. 1. 22. Gave him to be Head over all things. To the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. But so are not Infidels: For what Communion hath Christ with Belial, or Infidels? Ephes. 5. 23▪ 24. As Christ is the Head of the Church, and he is the Savior of the body: therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so, &c. Where we see, that is the Church which is subject to Christ: but so are not Infidels. 1 Cor. 12. 27. 12. 13. Now ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in particular. And of whom speaks the Apostle? Not of any Infidels, but such as had received the Spirit. For by one Spirit ye are all Baptized into one body: therefore they were not in it before. 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit. Infidels are not one Spirit with him: therefore they be not joined to the Lord. So Eph. 5. 30, 31, 32. Eph. 3. 17. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. But so are not Infidels: therefore they are not of the family. Joh. 6. 44, 45. No man cometh to me except the Father draw him: Every man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me. Infidels therefore be not come to Christ, and therefore have not Right in him as their head. Joh. 5. 40 Ye will not come to me that ye might have life. Col. 2. 6. As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him. Infidels have not received him, nor are in him. Joh. 15. 1, 2, 6▪ 7. &c. Abide in me, and I in you: If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, &c. Infidels therefore are not in Christ. Do we need more Light in so plain a case?
Yet I deny not but Christ may in some sense be called ours before we believe: That is; All men may truly say, that hear of him, He is our Savior, or our Redeemer, in that he is the Savior or Redeemer of the world: And hath paid a sufficient price for their Ransom, and is offered to them and life with him. The Elect▪ when they come to know that they are Elect, may say, He was our Savior and Redeemer in a special manner, as absolutely intending our infallible Justification and Salvation. But they can never say till they do believe, Christ is ours in Covenant, or he is our Head, or Husband, yea or that they have any true Right to him or in him, more then the rest of the world have. Though he were specially given for them, he is no more given To them, before they believe, then to other men.
For the Minor (that we have not Absolution, Pardon or Right to heaven, before we have Christ▪ by true Donation, or Covenant-Right) I take it to be so much proved already, so exceeding evident in many more Texts of Scripture, and so generally maintained by all the Orthodox, that it seems but loss of time to prove it.
Argument 19. If we had been pardoned, Absolved, or Justified, and had Right to heaven from eternity, or before we were born, then would Paul or s • me of the Apostles have made use of this, as an Argument against Justification by the works of the Law, or at least, not have pleaded against it, only Justification by Faith, which implies that we were not before Justified▪ or Absolved: But neiether Paul nor any of the Apostles did ever make use of such an Argument against Justification by the Works of the Law; but contrarily plead only Justification by Faith: therefore, &c.
How easily might Paul have silenced all pretences of the works of the Law to Justification, by proving that we were Justified before there was Law or man or at least before we were born and capable of working? Can he that is not, work to Justification? sure if this had been the way, we should have found the Apostle▪ instead of saying, We are • ustified by Faith▪ and not by the Works of the Law, to have pleaded thus against both, We were Justified before we were born, and therefore neither by Faith no • Works: these do but procure the sense of it to our consciences: and so both Faith and Works may do.
Argument 20. That Doctrine is not of God, which over • hroweth the Kingly▪ Priestly and Prophetical office of Christ, at least, as to a very great part of their work. But so doth the forementioned Doctrine which we are opposing: therefore.
The Minor (which only needeth proof) shall be proved thus in its several parts.
1. For the Kingly office of Christ, the exercise of it over his Church consisteth 1. In Legislation. 2. Judgment. 3. Execution of Judgment. 4. In Relaxation of Laws, (or abrogation of them) when he sees cause. 1. In Legislation he 1. determineth what shall be due from man, by his precepts: and 2. what shall be due to man, in his Promises and Threats; and what shall be the Condition of these. 1. The great and eminent use of the Law of Grace, is to be God's Instrument to make over to us Christ with his benefits, of Pardon, Absolution, Justification, Adoption, Right to Glory, &c. All this is overthrown, by feigning that all these are ours already; and therefore what need we any Promise, Testament, Deed of Gift, Covenant, or Law of Grace, to make them ours? And if we ourselves satisfied in Christ Legally, then we must have present Right in all the benefits ipso facto. 2. These Promises and Conveyances God hath made on condition of faith and Repentance. This act of Christ (the Constituting of the Condition) is also made void and vain▪ if not unjust, as being to men that had an Absolute Right before. 3. The Threats of non-Remission, n • n-Salvation, &c. if we believe not, or if we draw back, are also made void and vain, if not accused of flat injustice, as Threatning men with the loss of that which was Absolutely their own before, and the word of the Immutable God engaged for it. 4. And it is a very great doubt whether all God's precepts be not accused of injustice, or at least▪ the keeping of them of no necessity to salvation; if we ourselves have (in sense of Law, or the Law-giver) already perfectly obeyed them all to the death in Christ, or perfectly satisfied for not obeying them.
2. God's Judgment is according to his Laws, which are the Rule of Judgment. All the Accusations therefore, that fall upon the Laws, must fall upon the Judgment. When men have Absolute Absolution before they were born, and Absolute Right to Heaven, to Judge them a new, upon Conditional Promises, and adjudge that to them as upon that performance of a Condition (of feeding, clothing, &c. that is, loving and obeying Christ-believed in) this seemeth contradictory to the rules of equity.
3. The Execution is partly by temporal chastisements in this life (which antecede solemn Judgment) and partly, the eternal Reward and punishment: For the former, I have said enough before. They manifestly accuse all the penal Castigations of the Elect, of injustice: if they had fully obeyed or satisfied in Christ: and if they were perfectly Absolved and pardoned before.
And it is a charging that on God which he abhorreth in his Word, to say that the Reason why the Reprobate were damned, was not for refusing a Redeemer, or for not performing the Conditions prescribed, that they might have had part in that sufficient price of Ransom, but it was merely for sinning against the unremedied Law of Works, and as the Devils do perish, as having no Remedy, nor any expiatory sacrifice that ever was offered for them.
And that all the Reason of the Adjudging the Elect to heaven, is taken from their being absolutely justified or absolved in Christ, and having a Right to heaven by mere Decree and Purchase, and not upon any Conditional Promise after, nor because they were faithful in a very little. Luk. 19. 17▪ This Doctrine so contradicteth Christ's Judgment and Reward (which he giveth to every man, and according to his Works) that both of them cannot be Justified.
4. The other part of Christ's Kingly Power, is to be above his own Laws, though not to dispence with them without a valuable consideration (which he will not do) yet to Relax them by Remitting sins, upon a valuable consideration. This Power hath God exercised in Enacting the Law of Grace, or granting the Promise of pardon of all sins against the former Laws, on condition of our accepting Christ and Grace. The foresaid Doctrine denieth this Conditional Remission, and disableth God from making any such, because the thing is Absolutely our own before.
Thus we see how it would unthrone Christ, feigning him to make all to be ours so absolutely on the Cross, that he cannot give them out to us as Rector on conditional Promises, backed with penalties threatened, that is, on terms, and by ways that are beseeming a King and Governor of the world, and Judge of all men, nor as may be fitted to promote the ends of Government.
2. And but little better doth the said Doctrine deal with Christ's Priestly office, to which yet it seemeth to give almost all. For whereas Christ is purposely described by the holy Church to be a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek▪ it is a doubt whether they deny him not to be a Priest at all: For it was the office of the Priest to act as a middle person on behalf of the people, and for their good, but not in the very person of the sinner, so as that in Law the sinner did what the Priest did; further then as consent or request did make the Priest his Instrument. But these men rather make Christ our Delegate then our Priest; as if he had been one sent by us, to do and suffer in our person and stead.
But suppose that they do honor the exercise of Christ's Priesthood on the Cross; do they not deny him the honor of it ever after in heaven? It is the office of Christ, as Priest after the order of Melchizedek, to be still making Intercession for us with God: by which Intercession he procureth us pardon of sin when we believe, and Absolution or Justification, Adoption-Right to heaven; also he procureth us a renewed Pardon for each particular sin afterward; and the Continuation of the first: All this is denied by these men to his Priestly Intercession with God, and pretended to be done on the Cross before we were born: as if it were nothing but the knowledge or sense of these that Intercession procureth, with sanctification and possession of the glory that we had before a Right to. Heb. 7. 24, 25. He hath an unchangeable Priesthood; Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for them. What man that honoreth Christ's Priesthood, and knows the present need we have still of it, dare say, that he needeth not the Intercession of Christ to procure him the Pardon of any one sin with God, (all being done already) but only the sense of this in our consciences.
3. The Prophetical Office of Christ is exercised, by his writings and Ministers without, and his Spirit within; the work of all which is, to teach us his Will or Laws; even all things whatsoever he commanded: Math. 28. 20, 21. This Doctrine therefore which doth, as is aforesaid, subvert the Laws themselves, and the Doctrine which should be taught, doth contradict Christ's teaching by Word, Ministry and Spirit. If he teach us the nature of his Covenant, and the Conditions on which we must expect his blessings, these men deny all, and say, It is false: If he teach us what means we must use to attain Absolution from guilt of death, or Obligation to punishment, and to get Right to heaven, they rise against it, and say, We have all this already: there is therefore no means to be used to obtain it. The like may be said of other particulars.
I hope by this time it appears how little the Lord Redeemer is exalted and honored by their mistaken way of honoring him: and how much they detract from the honor of his Intercession, Teaching and Kingly Government, his Laws, Judgments, Executions and Remissions, while they mistakingly ascribe all to his Death and Merits. And that all is not an exalting of Christ and free Grace that pretends to be so: And that no way of man's devising is fit to exalt him, but only that way which his wisdom hath determined of.
SECT. V.
AND thus I have shown you somewhat of the face of these Doctrines of the Antinomians. 1. That we are Justified from Eternity. 2. That we are Justified, Absolved, or Pardoned at the time of Christ's death, and so before our being. 3. Or at least before our Conversion and believing. 4. That we ourselves did in God's esteem, or in Law-sense, perfectly obey, or suffer and satisfy in Christ: and so that Christ paid the same thing that the Law required of us, and not only satisfied for our not payment, by giving such a sacrifice to God as might be a valuable consideration, on which he might grant us the benefits, on such Conditions as are most suitable to his ends and honor: For though some have said, that it is not tantidem, a matter worth the contending about, whether Christ's satisfaction were the Idem or Tantundum, yet I take it to be of no less moment then all these heinous Consequents beforementioned do declare, and even to subvert the substance of Religion. The Idem is the perfect Obedience, or the full Punishment of man himself; and in case of personal Disobedience, it is personal punishment that the Law requires. It is Supplicium ipsius Delinquentis. The Law never threatened a Surety: Nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an Act of God as Above the Law. If therefore the thing due were paid, it was we ourselves Morally or Legally that suffered: and it could not be ourselves Legally, because it was not ourselves Naturally. But if it had been ourselves Legally, then the strictest Justice could not have denied us a present and perfect Dliverance ipso facto, seeing no Justice can demand more then the Idem quod d • bitur, the whole debt of Obedience or Punishment.
And that all may take heed of this unhappy model of Theology that these men have framed, I would earnestly commend to their Consideration this following advice.
1. Still keep in your minds a clear Distinction between God's Rectoral or Legislative Will determining de D 〈…〉 , offici • , premii, & poenae: and his Will de rerum ex stenti • & Eventu as such, determining de facto what shall be, and what not; Or between God's Decrees and his Laws. And take heed of confounding these in any point of Theology; much more in the whole frame. For ought I see, God's Eternal Decree is the beginning, middle and end of the Antinomians Theology; It is almost their All.
2. Distinguish carefully between that Decree, Law or Covenant, call it which you will, whereby the Father did, as it were, appoint unto his Son both his work and Reward; and that Law, or Covenant by which both Father and Son do Govern the Church, and make over to us the parts of our salvation. Confounding these hath lost the Antinomians in their Theology: so that so much of God's Covenants as they do take notice of, is little more then the Promise of the Father to the Son, and the Absolute discovery of▪ his Decree. They reduce almost all the Covenants to this, and denominate all from this.
And the very nature of the Thing, as well as the plain Scripture, proclaimeth to us this great Truth, which once more I entreat all men that read this well to consider of.
That, As it was not the sinner himself, nor any Servant or Delegate of his, but Christ the Mediator upon God's Mission and his voluntary Sponsion, who bore the Penalty, and made satisfaction to God; so it was meet that the fruits of this satisfaction should not be delivered by God immediately to the sinner, but sinners and all into the hands of the Redeemer; That all they shall receive might come to them through his hands, and come from him, as it was purchased by him. And that as dearly as God loved mankind, he did more dearly love his own righteousness and glory, and therefore did all this more principally for it, then for us▪ and therefore in his way of Conveyance, would do all on terms most beseeming his honor: And being still to continue the Gov • rnment of the world, he thought meet to make the same person Governor and Benefactor, King and Savior; that so he might Reign with saving, and save with Reigning, and give out his mercies, not by mere Absolute gifts, but by Laws and Grants Conditional, which might hold men to duty: That so as there is a blessed conjunction of Benefactor and Rector, Savior and King in the Head▪ there might also be an answerable conjunction in the Members, of love and loyalty, thankfulness and Obedience▪ Read Rom. 14. 9. Joh. 13. 3. Math. 28. 18, 19 20, 21. Joh. 5. 22. and 1 Joh. 5. 11, 12. with recital of which one Text I will conclude this matter. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: He that believeth not God, hath made him a Lyar, because he believeth not the Record that God gave of his Son. And this is the Record; that God hath given to us eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son: He that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not Life.
Here is in order of Nature. 1. God's Record of his Son. 2. Some men's believing it, and others not believing it. 3. The sinfulness of their not believing. 4. The different Consequents of Believing and not Believing. 1. The Record is in these two propositions. 1. That God hath given us eternal Life. This Life is Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. By us must needs be meant mankind in general, and not only the Elect: For some make God a Lyar in not believing it: which cannot be in not believing a thing as concerning others merely▪ and not themselves. By giving therefore must needs be meant Radically and Causally, and not formally every benefit: which appears in the second part of the Record, which is, that This life is in his Son: so that God hath not immediately given life into our hands, but to Christ for us, to give out unto us as he seeth meet. Now Remission, and Justification, as ours, cannot be formally in Christ, nor Right to heaven, but causally and potentially. God hath given us over actually to Christ, and given him Power and Right to give us life, viz. of Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, and glory. So that all is in Christ's hands, and not ours, till we have him. 2. The success of this Record is, that some believe, and some do not. 3. The sin of those that believe not is aggravated, in that they make God a Lyar. 4. The different Consequents are, that He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life. Where note, 1. That it is plainly implied, that the Believers have the Son, and the unbelivers have not: and therefore the former are said to have the witness in themselves, and the latter to make God a Lyar. As Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son (or obeyeth him not, or is not persuaded by him) shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. And v. 18. He is condemned already. 2. Note that upon our believing, first we have the Son, viz. In Covenant Right as our Head and Husband, and acknowledged King and Savior, and then we have life with him. 3. Note, that all they that have not by Faith received the Son, have not life, though they may be Elect thereto. That is, They are yet under both Guilt and Power of sin and death: They have not the Life of Remission or Absolution, nor the Life of Holyness, nor Right to the Life of Glory: For it is the word received that is able to save our souls, and to give us an Inheritance among the sanctified. And we are then made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light. When God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have Redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. That is, by the Merit of his blood-shed, when we are so translated into the Kingdom of Christ. For as on the shedding of his blood, Christ receiveth Authority to forgive us: so upon our belief in his blood, we are actually forgiven: And therefore it is more then the shedding of his blood, (even the Application also) which the Saints shall glorify him for in eternity, even Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the Kings of the Earth: Unto him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father, to him be Glory and Dominion forever and ever, Amen. Rev. 1. 5, 6.
CHAP. X. A Pill against Prejudice: Or the charge of singularity refuted. 1. By general. 2. By special Testimonies.
SECT. I.
I Am now come to the last part of my undertaken task, to show the world whether I be singular or not, by producing the Consent of Churches and Divines, in the chief point in question! At least me thinks I may promise myself this success; that I shall not be judged to love singularity, nor to desire to hear an Ego primus inveni, to be honored as the first inventer of any opinion, much less to be the leader of a party, while I do so ambitiously endeavor to persuade men that the opinion which I maintain is so common, as that it is owned by such an Army of the most eminent Divines; and that I do but come after them all in the entertainment of it. It shall appear that I affect not to stand alone.
Before I come to cite the words of others, I must tell you to what end I do it, and therefore I must tell you what is my own opinion which is suspected to deviate from the judgment of the Orthodox.
It is not only the Antinomians that I have now to deal with in this Chapter; but it is those Brethren whom I highly honor, whose judgments I more esteem. I confess it is Scripture that turns the scales of my judgment, and not men's opinions: though I shall still bear a Reverend regard to the judgment of the learned and Godly, as being such as are meet to be my Teachers, and of whom I am unfeignedly willing to learn. But the reason of my reciting these Testimonies, is to be a Pill to Prejudice, and open men's ears to Scripture-proof. It is not a few, nor only the unlearned and ungodly, who are mastered by prejudice in these disputable things. Were not the Power of prejudice wonderful, we should not see the Divines of one Nation all Lutherans, as Denmark, Sweden, Saxony, &c. and of another all Calvinists, as they are called; and of so many all Papists: and none or so few to depart from the way in Credit where they live. I confess I find in experience, that it doth more with most objectors, to cite the plain words of a Divine in Credit, then of Peter or Paul: When I mention what Christ saith, they make a puff at it, and say, That is your Exposition? but what say such and such Divines? As if Scriptures and human Authority were of the same account in England as in Italy! I speak not this of all; but of too many: Nor do I speak it to accuse them, but as the necessary reason of my following task, which they who know not our common case, may judge superfluous and vain.
The opinions which are excepted against in me, are those which are supposed to ascribe too much to man and his Actions in the matter of Justification. Which are especially these following.
1. That we are justified by believing the truth of the Gospel, and accepting Christ as offered therein, that is, as an entire Savior, to save us from sin itself, as well as from guilt and punishment, and as a King to Rule us: and so that subjecting the soul to Christ by Consent to his Kingdom, is an Act of Faith whereby we are justified, as well as resting on him for Justification, or apprehending or accepting pardon and righteousness. And that it is utterly void of Scripture-warrant to say, that It is only the Accepting of Christ's sacrifice, or Imputed Righteousness, which is the justifying Act: or else, only the resting upon it for Justification. Or that though fides quae Iustificat, Recepit Christum ut Regem, Faith which Justifieth, taketh Christ for Lord: yet Qua Iustificat, as it justifieth, it taketh him only to Justification.
The ground of my opinion here is misliked, which is this. 2. Faith doth not Justify qua fides, or qua haec fides, as this Faith, that is, as it is an apprehending or accepting of Christ's righteousness, nor is our Right to each particular Benefit of Christ particularized and constituted by the partitular object apprehended by Faith, as Impressions are made on the soul in sanctification, and individuated by individual objects, and specified by special objects; and so it is not as an Instrumental efficient cause that Faith Justifieth (for such it is not) nor yet formally from its natural act of Reception of such an object.
But Right to Christ and Life being a Moral effect, and conveyed by a Moral cause and way, that is, by a Law of Grace, or conditional Promise or gift; therefore the formal reason of Faiths Interest in our Justification is, as it is the Condition of that Promise by us performed: and its Essence, or Physical act, (the Acceptance of Christ and life) commonly called its instrumentality, though it be the Reason why it was chosen and preferred to this office of being the Condition of the Promise, yet is it but its aptitude to the office, and so the remote, and as it were, material reason of its Interest in our Justification, and not the formal Reason. And therefore so far as it is a Condition of pardon or Justification, it must needs be the pardoning or justifying act: And therefore it being the undivided and undistinguished acceptance of Christ as Christ; that is, as Lord-Redeemer and Savior, which is by Scripture made the Condition of our Right to Christ and his benefits, it follows, that we are justified by receiving him for Lord, as well as for Justifier by satisfaction, and that it is besides and against Scripture to say, that Faith Justifieth as an Instrument, or as it hath the Physical respect of an act to such an object; that is, as it apprehendeth Christ's righteousness, and resteth thereon, or as it is Faith in Christ as a Justifier.
3. As that Faith which is the Condition of our first Right to a state of Justification, is the accepting of Christ as Christ, and so as King, and so contains the entering ourselves by Consent into the Relation of subjects hereafter to obey, and a disposition and resolution to obey; so in those that survive, sincere obedience, (which is the performance of this Covenant) is the Condition, 1. Of our not losing our state of Justification, or of continuing it. 2. Of our particular pardon of particular sins, (at least renewed Repentance is such.) 3. And of our great Justification by Sentence at Judgment. But it is but a mere remote and secondary part of the Condition, in some subordination to faith, whereof it is a fruit. So that there is more required to the continuance and consummation of our Justification, then is to put us into a Justified state at first.
4. The performance of the Conditons of the New Covenant, for Justification and salvation (by Faith, Repentance, sincereobedience) are a personal, evangelical righteousness (commonly called Inherent); and therefore is it called our righteousness, because it is the performance of the Gospel condition, (rather then from its Relation to the Law or Covenant of works, which it violateth by its imperfection) seeing whosoever believeth and repenteth is non Reus, not guilty of the non-performance of the Condition of Justification, and he that also sincerely obeyeth to the end, is not guilty of the non-performance of the Conditions of sentential Absolution in Judgment.
It is not that Law (commonly called Moral or of works) which saith, Obey perfectly, or else die; which judgeth me righteous because of my Inherent qualifications, or imperfect obedience: but it is that Law, which saith, He that repenteth and believeth shall be forgiven, and he that sincerely obeyeth, (both naturally Moral, and supernatural precepts) and endureth to the end, shall be saved. This Law or Covenant pronounceth me righteous, upon my imperfect performances.
5. This righteousness is not our universal righteousness, nor the matter of our Justification against the Accusation of violating the Law of works, nor any part of satisfaction for such violation: but only it is first the Condition of our Interest in that righteousness (of Christ) and consequently a special particular righteousness, constituting us truly righteous; but only in tantum, so far as not to be chargeable with the final non-performance of the conditions of the new Covenant; that is, not to be guilty of final Impenitency, Infidelity, Rebellion, or Hypocrisy. And in judgment, it is only against this false accusation that we must be justified by it, as the matter of our righteousness; and against the charge of violating the Law of works, or being in general sinners, it is Christ's righteousness that must justify us, as the only meritorious cause or matter, and this of ours no otherwise then as the Condition sine qua non, of our Right in it: Yet when in order to our final universal Absolution, the question comes to be, Whether we have any Right in Christ or not? And so whether we performed the Condition of that grant or Promise, which giveth Right? Here that Faith and Repentance, which first are but Conditions of our Justification by Christ, do next become the very matter of that righteousness whereby we are Justified, against the particular accusation of being Infidels, Impenitent, or Rebels, or Hypocrites, and such as never performing the Condition have no Right in Christ. So that it is only in subordination to Christ and his righteousness, that we are to be justified by personal Righteousness: As it is in subordination to him, that we are now said to be constituted in tantum, personally (or Inherently righteous) by our being sincere Believers, penitent and obedient.
And thus I have truly given the very sum of my judgment in this matter, which is accepted against by some Brethren; In all which, 1. I make neither Faith, nor any act of man, to be the least causes of our justified state, or of continuing it, or of our final Absolution. 2. Nor do I take works of Obedience to Christ to be so much as present in our first Justification, but in order of nature to follow it.
The main thing that I find offend, are these two. 1. That I say, The Accepting Christ as King, and Teacher, is part of that Faith which is the Condition of Justification, and so justifying as well as the taking his righteousness. 2. That I say, Obedience to God Redeemer, is a secondary part of the Condition of the continuance, or not losing of our justified state, and of our final Justification at judgment. It is therefore these two that I shall especially endeavor to prove that I am not singular in.
And lest you should imagine that I wrong any Authors by forcing their words, or leaving out anything. 1. I will suppose you to have the books at hand to peruse the whole context, which I cannot have time to write, or suppose concern me not. 2. I will not undertake to reconcile all other passages in any book with what I cite, but if I force their words, I am contented to bear the blame. 3. I will annex the conclusion which I gather from many of them, lest you say, I cite each one as approving my whole cause. 4. But all shall drive at the proofs of this Truth, that I give no more to Works, then the most eminent Reformed Divines ordinarily do, though perhaps I give less to Faith and Man.
SECT. II.
BEfore I come to any particular testimonies, let me tell you, that I suppose that I have virtually the consent of all Protestant Divines, and that in sense and substance they say as much for Works in the matter of Justification as I do: And that this may appear. I will mention 14 particular Doctrines that all Protestants (for ought I know) agree in; everyone of which, I suppose, containeth in it as much as I maintain in this; much more all together.
1. The first common assertion is this: That all the Faithful have a true inherent righteousness, consisting in internal Graces or holiness, and external obedience, and that it is in an evangelical respect, that this is esteemed Righteousness and Accepted, seeing the Law requireth perfection, and curseth all that continue not in all things to do them; and our best Works are mortally sinful in the sense of the Law of Works.
This being the common Doctrine of Protestants. 1. What wants it of giving as much to man in point of personal Evangelical righteousness, as I do? 2. If it be truly and not equivocally righteousness, it must needs have a Metaphysical perfection inseparable from its Essence. 3. If it be truly righteousness, then we are truly justified by it, beyond all doubt: that is, 1. We are constitutively justified by it in tantum, so far and no further: Not constituted universally righteous by it; but we are constituted evangelically inherently righteous, • o far as that extends. For it is a mere contradiction to say a man hath a righteousness that Constitutes him not righteous: that is, He is righteous, and he is not righteous, in respect to the same righteousness.
2. This righteousness will undeniably justify him in judgment against the particular accusation of having not performed the condition of the new Covenant, that is, of being a final Infidel, Rebel, Hypocrite: And Math. 25. and many other Scriptures make it appear, that to judge men to have performed or not performed those Conditions (that is according to their Works evangelically) will be no small part of the work of Christ in that judgment. As therefore we are constituted, pardoned sinners, purely by Christ's Merits, and not anything of our own; so we are constituted evangelically, Inherently righteous, as being performers of the new Covenants Conditions of our Interest in Christ and Pardon, &c. Initially (but actually) on our first believing, and Progressively, as we bring forth the fruits of that Faith. And as at judgment we shall be pronounced Pardoned sinners, and therefore not to be condemned merely as sinners, (which term I oppose to the special excepted sins of final Infidelity and Impenitency, or Rebellion,) and this for the sake of Christ's blood alone: So we shall be pronounced Believers, and sincere Obeyers, because we were so indeed, and acquit from all false accusations of non-performance of the Gospel Condition, because we did perform it, and therefore are righteous in that cause, against that accusation.
2. THe second common assertion is this, That as every man may have a particular righteousness, and so a righteous cause in Judgment; so every man may be said most truly and properly to be justified in Judgment by a particular justification (if need be) by that particular righteousness, or justness of his cause. No man ever denied but that the Devil himself may be falsely accused: and so may any wicked man: I do not say, that it is any of the business of that day to vindicate them from such accusations: It is another work that will be then in hand. But you may see that they are so far Justifiable as they are just! If one accuse me of killing a man in India that I never heard of, may I not be justified before God, or man from that charge, by my innocence or righteousness? No doubt of it. If therefore we be accused at judgment of not performing the Conditions of the Law of Grace, and so of having no part in Christ's Merits, we must be justified by our Faith, Repentance and Obedience, as that matter or righteousness of our cause, and so of our persons. If any dream that there will be no use at judgment of any such Justification. 1. Yet they concede that such we may have, if it were useful. 2. I am far from their opinion, seeing, 1. It is the Law of Grace that we shall be judged by; and therefore our Absolution or Condemnation must be upon its Conditions. The Law is the Rule of Judgment. 2. What can it else be? 1. We shall not be justified or condemned by the Law of Works. 2. I will not exclude the mention of Christ's satisfaction, but principally include it as supposed: but by the descriptions of that judgment expressed in the word, it seems it is not the business of that day to inquire, whether Christ have done his part, but whether we have done ours: not whether Christ have satisfied, but whether we have believed and obeyed him in Love and Gratitude? The former being taken for granted, will not need a Judicial Decision. The judgment will proceed according to the Law which is Norma Judicii: But the Law which we shall then be judged by, supposeth Christ to be our Redeemer, and to have made satisfaction, and is founded on that ground, being the Lord▪ Redeemers Law: therefore the judgment according to that Law will suppose it too; and as he made the Law as Rector on his Redemption Right, so will he Judge on the same Right in the same Relation. 3. The Scripture expressly tells us that it is according to our Works, that we shall be judged; as we have well or ill used our Talents, which are the Redeemers mercies; and as we have loved him, and manifested it to his members, Math. 25 &c. Therefore it is certain that there will be use at that day for a Justification, as against the Accusation of non-performance of the Gospel-Conditions. Whether the accusation itself will be actual, or only Potential and Virtual, is little to the matter: Christ tells us the Justification opposite to it shall be actual and express.
4. And what else can our Divines mean, when they so commonly say, that Works shall be then mentioned as evidences of true Faith, and shall Justify Faith? By that it seems they suppose that Faith itself directly will be tried, and Works in relation to it. This therefore is opposite to the (actual or virtual) Accusation, that we are Infidels and Rebels.
3. THe third common assertion is this, That Repentance towards God, is a Condition without which we cannot be justified: The same many say of Love to God as our end and chief good, and Love to Christ as Redeemer, and thankfulness for his mercy, and desire after him.
This granteth the thing that I contend for, or that men are offended with me for asserting. For in Paul's sense, I ever disclaimed Works from Justifying, that is, either 1. Mosaical ceremonious Works. 2. Or exact righteousness according to the first Covenant, (no man having such.) 3. Or any conceited to be such. 4. Or any conceited meritorious, and making the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt, Rom. 4 4. But if by Works, you will mean any good action, I say that as Faith, so in their places Repentance, and Gratitude for the offer of Life, and desire and love to the object of Faith, are Conditions without which we cannot be saved or justified. And do not themselves say as much? Or dare any say otherwise except the Antinomians, that are for Infidels Justification? If you say, But Faith only is the Instrument, and not Repentance, Love, &c. I Answ. I never said that Repentance or Love were Instruments of Justifying us. Obj. But you say that Faith is not, and so you level them. Answ. 1. Lay the blame then where it should lie, and speak the truth: say that I deny that Faith justifieth us as the Instrumental cause, and say that I give less to Faith, and so to man in Justification then others do; and do not say I give more to other acts, as Repentance, Love, &c. When you know that others make them sine qua non, and necessary Conditions as well as I. 2. I have told you in my account to Mr. Blake, how far I deny Faith to be an Instrument, and how far I will contend with no man that useth the word, and my reasons for both, and that I give it the honor of being the Receiving Condition.
4. THe fourth assertion warranting my opinion, is this, That we are justified by Faith as long as we live, even by our renewed and continued Believing, and not only by the first instantaneous act of Faith.
I never met with man that denied this: How absurd and contrary to Scripture is it, to say, that no man hath justifying Faith above one minute or instant of his life (as to the act)? Or that all our after believing doth no more to our Justification and Pardon then our Woe • ks do, (in their account, which is nothing, as they expressly say?) Am not I warranted from this Doctrine of theirs then to affirm, 1. That Justification is a continued act? 2. That there is more requisite to the continuance of it, then was to the beginning? For it was one numerical act of Faith that sufficed (in its kind) to the beginning: but it must be many renewed acts, even through our lives, that are necessary for its continuance: And certainly believing all our lives, or persevering in the Habit, and renewing daily the acts, is somewhat more then to perform the first act of justifying-Faith.
5. A Fifth assertion of theirs is this, That renewed Repentance, especially for gross sins, is a causa sine qua non, or necessary Condition of our pardon for particular sins after Justification: Also that Prayer for pardon is the like Condition, and means to procure pardon: Also that Confession of sin is the like condition that God may forgive them: And that restitution of ill gotten, stolen goods (where it may be done) is the like Condition, to which end it is ordinarily urged, as from Austin, Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum: without restitution there is no Remission. (A cutting conclusion, saith Mr. R. Bolton, to all cut-throat Usurers. )
Now let but any one of all these be granted, and I am warranted to say, 1. That somewhat else besides Faith is a necessary Condition of pardon of sin, which they say is essential to Justification. 2. That somewhat more is required to renewed and continued pardon, then to the first. 3. That therefore (absolutely and unlimitedly) it is not fit to say that pardon or Justification is perfect at once, or as long as we are sinners, and have more sins ( future ) to be pardoned, and more means to be used both for continuance and renewal of pardon. What man dare say, I will never pray for the continuance of my pardon, Justification, or God's favor and Acceptance? I hope many of those dare not do thus when it comes to practice, whose disputing principles lead them to it. And surely as long as means must be used, the end is not obtained (unless they were media fruitionis, in heaven:) therefore while you must pray for continued Justification and renewed pardon or Justification from the guilt of particular sins, all this is yet unobtained, and your Justification not of the most perfect kind. And yet I am deeply blamed for saying, there is more necessary to continue our Justification, and consummate it, then to begin it: and that it is not Absolutely perfect at first.
6. ANother common Assertion of our Divines is, that, If a true Believer should fall to gross Rebellion • , and fall away from Grace, and from sincere Obedience to Christ, he should cease to be Justified: If he should lose his Sanctification, he should with it lose his Justification: And that it ought to be our care and daily study that we fall not away, and that on this motive, lest we lose God's favor and be condemned.
I know none but gross Antinomians deny this. And I blame them not to hold it, when God saith, If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: and if any draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him, &c. And will not this beyond all question, warrant us to say, that sincere obedience is a Condition of the continuance or not losing our Justification? This is but the same thing in other words which they say themselves: and yet this is my great and heinous offense! I hope these sober men will not say, that because it shall never come to pass that the justified shall lose their justification, it is therefore a supposition not to be put: yet I meet with such freaks in some Antinomians. The certainty of the end, supposeth the certainty of the means: and those means must be intended for that end: and therefore we may well suppose that the end would not be obtained without the means: and he that will not put such suppositions, is like to use the means but negligently. He that will not say, If I should not forbear sin, or perform duty, I should miss of heaven, would scarce use them well, I think: And he that scrupleth, to think or say, If Christ had not Redeemed me, if God had not called me, and justified me, I had perished forever. I think will be likely to perish, or is at least very unthankful: and yet these suppositions are as impossible, as our falling away. It is impossible we should not be redeemed and called now it is past: and it was as certain before, that what God had purposed must come to pass; and impossible that anything should frustrate his decrees. Yet who knows not that such suppositions are not only lawful, but necessary to the right actuating of our minds, and the Exercise of all God's Graces in us.
7. ANother common assertion is, that, The Faith which justifieth must take Christ for King and Prophet, and Sanctifier as well as a sacrifice for sin: and that this is required of God, as a matter of so great necessity, as that he will not justify us without it: yea it is no true justifying Faith without it. Yet they say, we are not justified by it, because this is not the act which apprehendeth Christ's righteousness: this is fides quae Iustificat, but not qua Iustificat: this is not the Instrument, nor the act related to that object which must justify.
And do they not here say as much as I? (Though I say not so much as they.) Either I understand it not, or else this confesseth that accepting Christ as Lord and King, is a Condition of our Justification, though it be not the Instrument of it? And did ever I say, it was the Instrument of it? If I deny the Instrumentality of another act as to Justification, doth it thence follow that I give more then they to this act?
8. THe next assertion which they own, is, That the will of man cannot desire evil as evil, nor refuse that good which they see to have only rationem boni: that man cannot hate himself directly, and will his own damnation. Or at least, that a man may will his own salvation, or escape of Torments without saving Grace: and therefore that even an unregenerate man may be Willing to be pardoned, justified and saved from hell; but he cannot be willing to be sanctified, obedient, and healed of his corruptions. Also they affirm, that God's Glory is his only or highest end in all his Works, and that he cannot intend the Creature before his Glory. Rom. 14. 9.
And if all this be so, is it not much liker, if we must needs make a distinction in the matter, that God rather intended the Accepting of Christ as King, to be more the Condition of our Justification, then the accepting him as pardoner or justifier? For the Condition and the benefit are usually thus different, that the benefit contains that which the party apprehendeth more good in, and the condition that which he is prone to apprehend some evil in, or some more difficulty or inconvenience: and in the condition the promiser useth to see to his own interest. If we suffer with him, we shall also be Glorified with him. Suffering is the • ill that must be licked down with the promise of Glory annexed: God would not say, if you will consent to be glorified with him, you shall suffer with him. If we confess Christ before men, he he will confess us, or own us before his Father and the Angels; but if we deny him, he will deny us. Confessing him in dangerous times, is the pill that must be licked down with the promise of his owning us. These promises suppose that the party is willing of the thing promised, but not so willing of the thing conditioned; and therefore the benefit expected must procure the condition performed. God saith not, if you will consent that I confess you before the Angels, and not deny you then you shall have leave to confess me in dangers. Lay all this to the case in hand. I confess to assent savingly to the truth of the Gospel, which is the Intellectual foregoing act, is a matter of so g • eat difficulty, t • at none can do it but by special Grace. But suppose believing the the truth of the word, (if it be but with a common temporary faith) can you prove that those men cannot be willing to be pardoned by Christ and saved from Hell, without special Grace? What man is willing to be damned, or unpardoned? If disputing serve not turn, go try them, and believe them as far as reason requires you: ask all the Town, how many of you would not have your sins pardoned? How many would go to hell? Who can Imagine then, that the chief intent of the promiser, was to make that the main or only condition, which men are all willing of by nature, or can perform by nature (if that were all, and if they first believed the truth of the word) is it not much liker, that God principally intended that act that flesh and blood apprehendeth to be against them? and which they do most stick at? yea, and which tendeth most directly to the securing of the interest and honor of the Redeemer? that is, to take him for our King and Guide, and to obey him? Physicians use to say, if you will take me for your Physician and trust me and take my Medicines, and follow my directions, I will cure you (if they can.) But they use not to say, if you are willing to be cured, or on condition you will consent to be well; I will be your▪ Physician, and give you this Medicine, perhaps bitter and unpleasant. Yet for my part I speak not this, as thinking it meet to make any partition in this business, nor to separate what God hath joined: I think it fittest to say that it is receiving Christ as he is Offered, that is the condition, even whole Christ with the whole heart: even against his pardoning Grace, nature may rise indirectly and by accident: but if we were necessitated to make a difference or separation, and must make one only or chiefly the condition of Pardon, it seems it would be rather willingness to be ruled, then to be Pardoned.
9. Another common Assertion is this, that 1. Refusing Christ's Reign and Government is a sin that certainly condemneth all that live and die in it. 2. And that Actual continuance in gross sin is damning. As Mr. Shepherd saith, sincere Convert, pag. 258. Though thy good Duties cannot save thee, yet thy bad Works will damn thee. And pag. 246. two things kee • a man from Christ. 1. Sin. 2. Self. And indeed the Lord Jesus saith expressly; These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me, Luke 19. 27. And 1 Joh. 3. 8, 9, 10. He that committeth sin is of the Devil; Whosoever is born of God sinneth not. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil; Whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God, &c. Eph. 5. 5, 6. Ye know that no Whoremonger, nor Unclean person, nor Covetous man, who is an Idolater, hath any Inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not Inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, Neither Fornicators, &c. Gal. 5. 19, 20, 21, 24. Rom. 8. 9, 13. All this is believed by our Divines, for they believe God's word to be true.
And is it not then undeniable, That 1. Accepting Christ to reign over us, 2. And sincerely obeying him, are conditions without which we cannot continue Justified, (nor be justified without the first) nor be justified or saved at the last day? that which doth removere prohibens, remove impediments, can be no less then à causa sine qua non, if that impediment must be removed, and must by that means be removed. But this impediment (refusing Christ's Reign, and disobeying him in absolutely necessary things) must be removed, and that by the contraries: therefore accepting Christ to reign over us, and sincerely obeying him, can be no less then à causa sine qua non. And this being from the force of Divine Ordination in the Law of Grace, that subjection and obedience are made so necessary a means to that end, and that Rebellion and Disobedience is made so destructive, it must needs be that they have properly the nature of a condition: He that hath said, He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned: doth give us to understand▪ that it is the same believing whose presence hath the promise of Salvation, and whose absence hath the threatening of Damnation: Look what unbelief it is that is meant in the threatening, it is the contrary faith that is meant in the promise. But it is the not accepting Christ as King, that is part of the unbelief that condemneth: therefore it is the accepting him as King that is the belief that saveth (supposing the other parts.) And lest any should say, saving and justifying is not all one (of which more anon) Christ doth say as much of justification itself. For justification is confessed to be opposed to condemnation, by those that I speak to: And Christ saith, Joh. 3. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already. Not to be condemned, is beyond all doubt to be Absolved, or justified (and not a mere Negation of condemnation as a stone hath:) Now it is here evident that justification and condemnation are opposed as the effects or consequents: and believing and not believing are opposed as the conditions and Antecedents. Now it being a not believing that condemneth, it is past doubt, that it is a not believing to Justification, or a Privation of the same faith that justifieth: Else were the equivocation so great, as to leave the words not intelligible: so that if we can but find out the nature of one branch, we may undoubtedly know the other; Know but what is the condemning unbelief, and you may easily know what is the justifying faith. Now the former is most expressly told us by the Judge himself, Luk 19. 27. beforecited. The sentence of Condemnation is past on them, for not receiving Christ as King: These mine enemies that would not that I should Reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me, Joh. 1. 12. As many as received him, that is, believed, have power given them to be sons: And here as many as received him not as King, are condemned as enemies
Nay, observe in the • ext in hand, that the reason why Unbelief is the condemning sin, is because it is the privation of that faith which God hath made the condition of Justification and Salvation. And therefore it is said: But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed. There is much more in this, because he hath not believed, then if it had been barely because he hath sinned, or is a sinner: though both may be true. For the Law of works condemneth every sinner, simply as a sinner: The Law of Grace condemneth every unbeliever and impenitent Rebel, that obstinately to the end refuseth recovering Grace: And it is the latter that this Text speaks of: Else it would have said, he is condemned already, because he is a sinner, or hath broke the Law of works. But some learned men tell me, to this, that unbelief is sin, and therefore there is no condemnation but by the Law of works▪ which condemneth for all sin? wh • t need a New Law to condemn us for one sin or more, when the old condemneth for all? Answ. Though all unbelief be sin, yet all sin is not unbelief. And therefore we may well distinguish between sin, as sin in general, and as this sin in special which God hath, if final, excepted from pardon. The Law condemning all sin, prohibiteth not the Gospel, to adjoin a special condemnation of one sin: Nor is it absurd that one duty should be doubly a duty by the common Precept of the Law, and a special Precept of the Gospel, nor that one sin should have a double Condemnation, common as a sin by the Law of Works (though yet that will hold great dispute) and special, as the rejecting of the remedy by the Law of Grace. And it was not the prime intent of the Law of Grace, to condemn men for unbelief (which you say the Law doth▪) But to offer a remedy from former condemnation, the promise being the Principal part: but yet that this promise might not be slighted, it seemed good to the promiser to annex a threatening, that the refusal of the remedy might be doubly condemned. And were it only the threatening of a non-liberation, non-remission, it were a true and proper penalty, when Liberation and Remission is given to all by a conditional Grant or Law of Grace. If the State or a King make an Act of free pardon, that all the Rebells in such a Country shall be pardoned that lay down Arms, and accept of pardon by such a day, and those that do not, shall die without mercy: Here you may say, they were before condemned by Law as Rebels: But yet they were not before condemned as refusers of pardon. 2. Or if they had, yet before their condemnation was not peremptory and remediless 3 Nor was a non-remission any part of their penalty. 4. Nor would it be unmeet by a new Act thus again to condemn them And it is one thing now for the Judge to hold an Assizes to try who were Rebels, and who not, and accordingly to condemn and justify, and another thing to hold an Assizes to try which of these Rebels came in by the day, and accepted the pardon, and which not, and accordingly to condemn and justify. To return therefore whence I am carried by this objection, it is evident by this Text, Joh. 3. 18. that as there is a common condemnation by the Law of works, of all sinners as sinners; so the Law of Grace dissolveth that, and absolveth all believing sinners, though sinners: but excepteth the want of faith, and so specially again condemneth by a peremptory remediless condemnation all final impenitent unbelievers: not as sinners in general, but as such sinners in special: And that the reason of its condemnation is because they believed not, and therefore it is past doubt, that look what unbelief is the condemning unbelief, by this special Gospel condemnation, the contrary must needs be the justifying faith: But unwillingness that Christ should Reign over men, is the condemning unbelief: Therefore, &c.
One other Argument let me take up from this text, whose next words expressly say the things we affirm. Ver. 19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, because their deeds were evil. Before we heard, that he that believeth is justified, or not condemned: and that he that believeth not (with that same faith) is condemned, and that eo nomine because he believeth not: And here it is expressly said that this is the condemnation, that is, the condemning unbelief, that Christ is come as a light, which is to Teach, and Guide, and Reform, and men loved darkness rather then this light, because their deeds were evil, which this light Discovered, Reproved, and would have Healed. May I not then by the warrant of this Text say on the contrary. [And this is the Justification, that is, the Justifying Faith, that Light is come into the world, and men love this Light better then darkness, that their deeds may be made manifest and healed of the evil.] Mark here also, that to love the • ight is justifying Faith. Love to Christ in Accepting him as Redeemer, is Faith itself, and not to be excluded in Justification.
To what is here said, adjoin the Arguments which I have briefly given Mr. Blake, to prove that to receive Christ as King and Prophet is justifying Faith.
And as I have said this much in matter of Faith, so I might as fully have shown that on their Concession, by the rule of contraries, Obedience must be a Condition of our continued and final Justification and Salvation.
10. THe next Concession of our Divines that I shall mention, is this, they commonly teach, That sincere obedience is a condition of salvation; though some of them deny it to be a condition of justification. Now they say in this as much in sense as I do, & on that ground I may well be warranted to say it is the Condition of our Justification at Judgment. For, 1. Justification at Judgment is part of salvation in that stricter sense, as it is ordinarily used. 2. Justification at Judgment is the adjudging men to salvation: It is to try and Judge who are heirs of salvation and who not: And therefore undoubtedly the same thing that is the Condition of their salvation, is the Condition of their Justification. If you hold your Lands by a Deed of gift, the Judge will by the same Deed decide the Controversy for you, and pass Sentence on your side, when your Right is questioned. 3. Saving and Condemning are as frequently opposed in Scripture, or as plainly as Justifying and Condemning. 4. Mans works are as strictly excluded by Paul from saving him, as from Justifying him (in that sense as he takes works in his exclusion) and saving is as strictly reserved as the effect of free Grace, as Justifying is: Nor is it anymore dishonor to Christ that men Justify themselves, then that they save themselves: Christ will have no partners in his honor in either. See for this, Rom. 3. 23, 24. compared, Rom. 4. 4. and 4. 13. and 4. 16. and 5. 17, 18. and 6. 23. and 8. 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 17. Heb. 11. throughout, Tit. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7. Eph. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. All which places fully show that it was never the meaning of the Apostle to make Obedience a Condition of salvation, and not of Justification at Judgment; or so to distinguish between these, as to exclude works from one, and not from the other▪ For so far as he excludeth them, he excludeth them from both. Only I still confess, that when Justification is taken for our first being Justified only, it must needs go before works of external obedience, but that is not Paul's meaning in excluding works, for he excludes them from saving as well as justifying. It must be acknowledged therefore, that in what sense they are not excluded from saving, as Conditions, in that sense they are not excluded from being Conditions of our Justification at Judgment, or as continued.
A learned man here gives me a twofold answer, 1. That there is no proper Justification at judgment, but only a declaring that we are justified. Repl. 1. And another as learned Animadverter tells me, there is no other Justification but the Judges judicial Sentence. It is hard pleasing all Divines. 2. To declare by a Decisive sentence is most properly to justify, and more then to declare by a Narration. All Judicial Justification is but a declaring, by a deciding Sentence, who is just in Law. This is therefore as good an answer as to say, No Judge doth justify: He doth but declare who was Justified before. But the Justification he had before, was of another sort, viz. Constitutive, and as to that of Sentence, but Virtual: The contrary therefore is a sound arguing: Every Judge that by Sentence declares who was just in Law, doth thereby justify them, that is, by Sentence. 3. I will believe God before men. 1. God telleth us frequently, that we shall be judged, and that according to our Works: It is an Article of our Creed, that Christ will judge us. And Judging is the Genus which existeth in its Species, which are well known to be Justifying or Absolving, and Condemning▪ therefore to say, We are not justified then, is to say, either we are condemned, or not judged 2. Doth not Christ expressly say, Math. 12. 37 But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. It is a hard case among Christians and Divines, that these plain truths should meet with so much opposition.
The second Objection is, that Obedience is indeed a Condition of salvation, but not of Right to salvation▪ (for they are forced to confess that to Justify, is to give Right to Impunity, and so to salvation; and so it is all one thing: and therefore if works be the Condition of our Right to salvation, then also of our Justification.)
Reply. 1. I still confess that our first Right to salvation is before external works, (but not before Repenta • ce and Love to Christ.) But it is our adjudged▪ consummate, and continued Right, that the Question doth concern. And 1. hear our Teacher, Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in by the Gate into the City. 2. It is a mistake of the very nature of a Condition, which causeth this Objection. The Condition is Promissionis vel Testamenti Conditio: The Condition of God's Grant, or Christ's Testament: And the Promise or Testament, is to convey Right, and not natural beings directly: and therefore the Condition is ever a Condition of the Right conveyed by the Promise. A natural Qualification, vulgarly called a natural Condition, may be said to be the Condition of the thing in its Physical being, (as the dryness of Wood and its proximity to the fire is of its burning.) But a Civil, Moral, Legal Condition, is ever a Condition of Right; it being Right that Laws and Promises do convey. He that calls for proof of this, will not much honor his understanding by the demand: Especially in respect to our present case.
11. ANother common Assertion, equipolent to what they blame in me, is this, That Faith Justifieth the Person before God, and Works Iustifie the Faith.
This is in sense as much as I give to Works herein. For to justify the Faith of the person, is to justify the person so far, when his Faith is questioned. If his Faith be not questioned (actually or virtually) and there be no use for Justifying it, then shall not his works Justify it at all: If there be use for such a Justification of his Faith, (whether against an actual or implied potential accusation) then himself is justified by the Justification of his Faith; that is, as to that Cause, and against the accusation. Nor is there any Justification of a man's cause, which Justifieth not the Man as to that cause: Nor any Justification of the man in Judgment, but by Justifying his cause▪ Only there is great difference between cause and cause: between the question, Whether he be universally righteous? and Whether he be in this point and thus far righteous only? And I never affirmed that man is further justified by his own Faith and Obedience, as the matter of his righteousness, at God's bar, but only in tantum, as to this particular cause. Yet I say, it is a Cause of great moment, and wh • ch our universal Justification hath a dependence on, as on a condition. When the question is, Whether we have performed the Condition of the Promise that gives right to Christ or not? as to this cause, our performance is the righteousness by which we are Justified. And this is the Truth of God, which men maintain in other words, while they oppose it in these.
12. ANother common Assertion is that [ James by Works means a working Faith, when he saith we are Justified by Works, and not by Faith only▪] Thus Mr. Pemble, and the most of our Divines. I believe as well as they, that James speaks of Works as effects of Faith, qualifying it or proving it fit to justify: but yet I believe verily that by Works he means Works indeed, having mentioned them no less then 12 times in 13 or 14 verses. But suppose the meaning be that a working faith Justifies, and not a faith that will not Work: If they place no reason of its justifying, in this modification (that it be working) the scope of I am • 's discourse confuteth them, and the reasons that he brings are made void and vain. It never was in his mind to take pains to prove the necessity of such a Qualification of Faith▪ as is no means, no not so much as a Condition, to the end in question, but is a mere concomitan •
But if they mean, that Faiths working nature, is any means or Condition of its justifying, they say as much as I. For example; A man is promised his freedom if he pa • 〈◊〉 . currant money. That it be money, is the substance of the Condition: but that it be currant, is a modification of it, and part of the Condition; and without it he shall no more be freed then if he paid none at all. So if God say, [He that believeth with a working Faith, shall be Justified] that it be working, is as necessary a part of the Condition as that it be Faith. And it is but the Conditionality that I assert.
13. IT is commonly Asserted, [That Works justify us Declaratively at judgment.] So Keckerman saith [Metonymically Justification in the Hebrew Idiotism is taken for Evidence, Declaration, and Probation, whereby it is made known to others that our sins are remitted: and so the Apostle James following the Hebrew form of speech, useth the word Justification; so that to be justified by works, is the same as to be declared by good Works▪ that we are justified.]
Here note, 1. That our Divines do generally teach against the Papists, that this is the most proper sense of the word, and that faith itself is said to Iustifie but in sensu forensi, (principally say some, only say others.)
2. Note, that the thing itself is evident, that a Sentence is but a Judges Decisive Declaration (and no doubt it is no other Declaration that they can mean.) So that it is plain that they do teach tha • a man is Justified by Works in the most proper sense, when they say that they Iustifie us at Judgment Declaratively, or are the reason or cause of God's judicial declaring us just.
14. IT is commonly asserted▪ [That Works are the Ratio Sententiae. the Reason of the Sentence of our Absolution] I know none that deny this. So Brumler. Ratio Absolutionis est ab enumeratione operum, &c. So Pareus in Mat. 25. Bishop Vshers words (in his Body of Divinity ) are these▪ [The Godly shall be pronounced just, because their Works though imperfect, do prove their faith, &c. to be a true Faith, as working by love in all parts of Obedience.] So commonly others. Now what is this less then I have said? I ever said, Obedience is no cause of our Constitutive Justification or pardon, nor of our right to the Kingdom; But it is the reason of the sentence, and so we may be said to be Justified because we are just, so far as we are just: The reason or cause of the sentence, and the thing sentenced being not the same. And as much do they generally say: Nay, it is as much as to say, we are properly justified by works in Judgment, and it is a fit and usual sense: For what more proper sense of the word Justifying, then this? when the thing is the very reason and cause of the sentence. And no doubt the reason why any man is judged just, is because he is just. And therefore his righteousness, so far as he hath it, is the reason of his Justification. And therefore when we must be Judged, whether we have performed the conditions of the pardoning Covenant, Our personal performance must be the Righteousness which must be the reason of our Justification
And thus, (if partiality blind me not) I have shown with sufficient evidence to them that will see that I give no more to works in the points that I am blamed for, then the generality of Protestants do give; Yea then many of themselves that contradict me: Only I attempted to explicate the nature and reason hereof, I thought, in a Method more plain and satisfactory: wherein if I came short of my ends, I hoped it might be pardoned as lost labor, rather then reproached as erroneous.
I shall now proceed to particular Testimonies: desiring the Lord to forgive the sin in them and me that put me and the Reader to this laborious loss of time.
SECT. III.
The Testimony of Reformed Divines ascribing as much to works as I: and many of them delivering the same Doctrine.
Confess. Augustan. Artic. 6.
SEmper sentiendum est, nos consequi Remissionem peccatorum, & personam pronunciari justam, id est, acceptari gratis propter Christum per fidem. Postea vero placere etiam obedientiam erga legem, & Reputari quandam Justitiam, & Mereri praemia.
IBid de Bonis operibus. Quanquam haec nova obedientia, procul abest à perfection legis, tamen est Justitia, & meretur praemia, ideo quia personae reconciliatae sunt. At{que} ita de operibus judicandum est, quae quidem amplissimis laudibus ornandae sunt, quod sint necessaria▪ quod sint cultus Dei & sacrificia spirituali • , & m • reantur praemia, &c.
IBid. postea. Debet autem ad haec dona accedere exercitatio nostra, quae & conservat ea & meretur incrementum, juxta illud, Habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus praeclare dixit, Dilectio meretur incrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur.
The Augustine Confess. Art. 6.
WE must still hold, that we obtain Remission of sins, and the person is pronounced just, that is, is freely accepted for Christ's sake through faith: But that afterward obedience to the Law also doth please, and is reputed a certain Righteousness, and doth merit rewards.
THough this new obedience be far from the perfection of the Law, yet is it Righteousness, and meriteth the rewards therefore because the persons are reconciled. And so we must judge of Works, which indeed must be adorned with very ample praises, that they are necessary, that they are God's worship (or service) and spiritual Sacrifices▪ and merit the rewards, &c.
But to these Gifts we must add our Exercise, which doth both conserve them, and merit an increase: According to that, To him that hath shall be given. And Austin said excellently, Love Meriteth an increase of Love: that is, when it is exercised.
THat which I conclude hence, is, that the first and most famous Protestants, did give more in terms, at least, to works then I: for they frequently ascribe merit to them, without adding any restriction, as using the word improperly, or disclaiming the fitness of the term: Though no doubt, they did use it improperly, whether they thought so or not.
COnfess. Wittenburg. in Harm. §. 9. cap. 7. We say that good Works commanded of God, are necessarily to be done, and that through the free mercy of God, they do deserve (or Merit) certain their own either Corporal or spiritual Rewards.
OUr late Reverend Assembly in the lesser Catechism. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest on Jesus Christ as he is offered to us in the Gospel. Confes. cap. 14. §. 2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the▪ Authority of God himself speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith, are Accepting, Receiving and Resting upon Christ alone for Justification, Sanct • fication and Eternal life, by virtue of the Covenant of Grace. Chap. 15. Although Repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free Grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it. And in both Catechisms having shown that every sin deserves God's wrath and curse [ Quest. What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and Curse due to us for sin? Answ. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of▪ us faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby God communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption.]
That which I conclude hence, is, 1. That saving faith consisteth not in any one single act. 2. That saving faith being the receiving of Christ as offered, must needs be the receiving him as Lord, or King and Prophet: And I shall take Saving-faith, and Justifying-faith, for all one, till I see more proof of the contrary then yet I have done: Especially while I think, that to justify constitutively in right, is to give right to Impunity and Salvation; and to justify sententially, is to sentence us to Salvation, and not to Damnation. 3. That Repentance is a means sine qua non to pardon of sin. 4. That Repentance and diligent use of all God's outward means, &c. are necessary▪ means required of us to our escape of God's wrath and curse due to us for sin: which is, if I understand it, to obtain pardon of sin: For Dr. Ames saith; Medul. pag. 1. cap. 12. §. 3. The Papists distinction into Remission of the fault, and of the punishment, is a distinction without a difference.
DAvenant (that light of Dort, Cambridge, England ) expresseth himself concerning the interest of works in justification in the same phrase and sense (as far as I can understand him) as I do: I therefore recite his words, not as a bare Testimony, but as an Explication of my own meaning, a • fully as I can tell how to explain it. And if any will make a difference, let them on the same grounds set me at odds with myself. For I do hereby subscribe to these words of his as heartily as to any of my own.
De justi habit. & act. c. 30. p. 386
Q. Utrum Bona opera dici p • ssint ad Justificationem aut salutem necessaria? Quidam Theologi e nostris ajunt, quidam negant, verborum formulis discrepantes, ad rei tamen summam quod attinet concordes. Sed quo veritas magis pateat, sententiam nostram hac in re, hisce Conclusionibus complectemur.
Concl. 1. In dimicationibus cum Pontificiis de Justification, non est consultum aut tutum adhibere aut admittere hasce propositiones: Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationem. Vel bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem.
Nam utrum{que} possunt adhibitis explicationibus ad sanum sensum reduci; tamen cum nude proponuntur, Papistae semper intelligent opera esse necessaria tanquam causas verâ & propriâ suâ Dignitate Meritorias humanae salutis; quod est falsissimum.
Concl. 2. In Concionibus Popularibus apud indoctum vulgus praedict • prop • sitiones aut omnino vitandae sunt, aut simul cum claris explicationibus adhibendae—Illi fortasse putabunt h • nc vim subess • huic assertioni, ut innuat hominem Justificari aut salvari virtute & Merito operum suorum.
Concl. 3. Bona opera non sunt nobis ad salutem necessaria, si per bona opora intelligamus opera ad amussim legis exacte bona & perfecta.
Explico: per opera exacte bona & perfecta, talia intelligo qualia homo nondum lapsus potuit praestare: quia Decalogus etiam ab homine lapso sub poena aeternae damnationis potest exigere. Haec autem perfectio sita fuit potissimum in duobus. Quorum prius est, quod homo operabona praestare potuit toto cord, ac dilection plenariâ, nullâ malâ concupiscentiâ debitum fervorem cordis, minuente, aut hisce operibus labem qualemcun{que} aspergente. Posterius, quod idem homo integer potuit perpetuo quodam & minime interrupto tenore bona opera facere, nullo malo admixto aut interveniente. Quod haec duo requirantur ad opera legaliter bona, patet. Gal. 3. 10. &c. Opera igitur legaliter bona, & ex legali pacto ad salutem necessaria, sunt ea quae à puro & pleno Dei amore dimanant, at{que} constanti tenore (nullo malo opere interim admisso) ad extremum us{que} vitae spiritum exhibentur. Dico hujusmodi bona opera non esse omnino necessaria ad Justificationem aut salutem renatorum. —
Concl. 4. Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut Justificationem necessaria, si per necessaria, intelligamus sub ration causae Meritoriae necessaria.
Conclu. 5. Some good Works are necessary to Justification as Conditions concurrent or foregoing, though they be not necessary as efficient or meritorious causes.
In hisce bonis operibus numero illa interna quae apud Deum magni momenti sunt, quamvis in hominum oculos non incurrant; utpote dolere de peccato, detestari peccatum, humiliter se Deo subjicere, ad Dei m • sericordiam c • nfugere, in Christo Mediator spem figere, novae vitae propositum inire, aliaque Consimilia. Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites, hoc est, nihil agents; neque equos & mulos, hoc est, recalcitrantes, & libidinibus suis obstinate adhaerescentes: sed homines, eosdemque compunctos & contrito, ac verbi spiritusque Divini ductum sequentes.
Conclu. 6. Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Iustificationis statum Retinendum & Conservandum; non ut Causae, quae per se efficiant aut mereantur hanc conservationem; sed ut Media seu Conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult Justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare.
Nam uti nemo recipit. Iustificationem illam Generalem quae liberat à Reatu omnium praevedentium peccatorum, nisi concurrente poenitentiâ, fide, novae vitae proposito, aliisque ejusdem generis actionibus: ita nemoretinet statum à Reatu liberum respectu peccatorum Consequentium, nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus, Credendi in Deum, invocandi Deum, mortificandi carnem, assidue poenitendi, & dolendi de peccatis assidue admis • is. Ratio cur ex parte nostra necessario requirantur haec omnia, illa est: Quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo, ut non adesse incipiant illorum opposita, quae pugnant cum natura Justficat • .—Sicut ergo ad conservandam vitam naturalem necessario requiritur, ut quis studiose vitet ignem▪ aquas, praec • pitia, venena, reliquaque quae salutem corporis perimunt; sic ad conservandam vitam spir • tualem necessario requiritur, ut quis vitet incredulitatem, impoenitentiam, caeteraque animarum salut • infesta & inimica, quae vitari non possunt, nisi exerceantur actiones oppositae & contrariae. Hae autem actiones non Conservant vitam gratiae proprie & per se, attingendo ipsum effectum Conservationis, sed improprie & per acc • dens, excludendo & removendo Causam destructionis.
Conclu. 7. Bona opera Iustificatorum sunt ad salutem necessaria necessitate Ordinis, non Causalitatis; vel planius, ut Via Ordinata ad vitam aeternam, non ut Causa meritoria vitae aeternae.
DEnomine meriti lege antea citata: quibus add, quae Idem cap. 54. p. 571. 572.
Ad nostrorum Theologorum sententiam explicandam jam accedamus: in qua statuenda illud im • rimus observetis; Utcunque nostri Theologi jam abstineant à vocabulo meriti, quo Patres frequenter utuntur, id tamen faciunt, non quod à Patribus dissentiant, sed ne Papistis consentiant, qui illud vocabulum (totâ antiquitate reclamante) in sensum perniciosum & haereticum obtorto quasi collo rapuerunt: Nam quod Patres sub meriti nomine intelle • e unt, nimirum opus hominis fidelis & renati supernaturali bonitat • praeditum▪ in ordine supern •• urali Deo gratum & acceptu •• , atque ad praemia gratiosa tam hujus quàm futurae vitae ex munificentissimi Dei promissione ordnatum, id totum nostri semper concesserunt. Oppugnamus igitur non nudum nomen meriti innoxio sensu à Patribus olim frequentatum, sed superbam & falsam meriti condigni Opinionem, à Pontificiis nuper in Ecclesiam Dei introductam. Vid. Bucer. in Colloq. Ratis. p. 567. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Fid. in 4. q. de bonis oper. p. 185. Calvin. Institut. l. 3. c. 17.. 3.
IDem cap. 32. p. 410. Nos semper Concessimus conatum mortificationis & studium sanctificationis, necessarium esse ad salutem ut Conditionem antecedentem; Mortificationis autem actus quatenus noster dicitur, non ut causa requiritur proprie dicta, sed ut causa sine qua non, vel removens prohibens, quibus ratio causalitatis improprie tribuitur. Non enim ipsum effectum operantur aut attingunt tales Causae, sed solummodo aliquid praevium, aut connexum cum effecto.
PAg 412. Pariratione, qui • Deut promisit premium • ternum misell • s operibus hominum fidelium; quando ventum erit ad extremum Judicium dicturus est, Venite, Possidete Regnum; Esurivi enim, &c. Sed planissime insanit prae superbia qui inde cum Jesuitis inferat, buccellam panis, • ut hausium aquae frigidae datum pauperculis Christi membris, esse Causam efficientem aut vere meritoriam tam infinitae gloriae. Dicimus igitur bona opera esse Motivaad quae Deus respicit in Collatione praemii coelestis, propter suam ordinationem & promissionem: non autem sse Caus • s hujus praemii efficientes, per suam dignitatem & efficaciam.
CAp. 33. p. 419, 420, 421. Opera renatorum habent Ordinationem ad praemia hujus vitae & futurae. 1. Quia Deus gratuito secundum beneplacitum voluntatis suae promisit praemia hujus vitae & futurae bonis operibus hominum fidelium & renatorum. 1 Tim. 4. 8. Gal. 6. 8. Mat. 20. 8.
2. Habent quandam Ordinationem, aut saltem aptitudinem ut ordinentur ad praemia divina, ex ipsa Conditione Operantis.
3. Habent Ordinationem ad pr • mia ex Conditione ipsorum operum.
Vide reliqua.
5. DOctor Twisse, Vind Grat. l. 1. p. 2. Sect. 25. p. 273. An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem peccatorum esse effectionem fidei? tametsi non nisi Credentibus contingat ista Remissio. Dices, fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendam: Esto; atqui hac ration dicatur. Effectio fiedi; sed in genere tantùm Causae Dispositivae.
IDem ib. praefa. 6. b. [Citra Controversiam, Bona opera sunt Causa Dispositiva salutis.
Et lib. 3. Err. 7. Digres. 3. pag. 42. b. [ Nec quod fides sit Conditio salutis quicquam obest quo minus sit etiam medium ad obtinendam salutem. Immo omnis Conditio hujus generis habet rationem medii; rursus omne medium morale habet rationem Conditionis respectu finis. Neque enim sine debitis mediis ac quiri potest finis: Et praestatio conditionis babet rationem medii ad assequendum illud quod sub conditione nobis proponitur obtinendum. ]
Ibid pag. 54. à contra Grevinch. [Immo inquam non aliâ ration fides est medium quàm quia Deus constituit per fidem homines salvos facere, nec sine fide quenquam ex adultis facere. Nam ejusmodi medium non est medium nisi ex praedicta ordination Dei. Nam medium vox est communioris significationis quàm conditio. Non omne medium est conditio, licet omnis conditio sit medium. Sed medium ad aliquid obtinendum ex contractu vel faedere, illud demum est conditio Hujusmodi autem medium constituere penes contrahentem est; praesertim vero penes superiorem cum inferiore stipulantem. Quare cum Deo consultum fuerit non nisi per fidem homines salvos facere, & vere credentes ad unum omnes salvos facere, ex ista Dei constitutione fit ut fides evadat medium ad salutem. ]
Et • ib. 1. §. 7. part. 3. pag. 318. [ Ad causas salutis quod attinet, non modo fides, sed & resipiscentia etiam & bona opera, ut fructus poenitentiâ digni, ex ordination Dei antegrediuntur salutem in adultis, id{que} tanquam causae; non quidem meritoriae, ut ne{que} fides in Christum ejusmodi causa est, sed tanquam causae praeparativae & dispositiones praeviae. ]
IDem Contr. Corvin pag. 209. • ol 2. Ordinatio salutis poterit esse absoluta, licet ipsa salutis collatio non sit absoluta sed ex conditione, non modo impetrationis ejus per sanguinem ex parte Christi, sed & fidei & Resipiscentiae ex parte nostra ]
[ Ad quem finem assequendum necessaria fuit tam impetratio salutis per sanguinem facta ex parte Christi, quàm fides & resipiscentia ex parte nostra: quia scilicet constituit Deus confer nobis salutem per modum praemii. ]
Ibid. pag. 284. [ Omnibus electis incumbit salutem quaerere non modo ex fide, sed & ex operibus, quatenus sine dubio salus conferenda est per modum praemii, quo praemiaturus est Deus non modo fidem nostram, sed & bona opera universa.] Vide eundem Vindic. Grat. li. 3. Er 7. Digres. 3. pag. 42. 44. Et contra Corvinum, pag. 207. a. & pag 274. b. & pag. 287.
WHether good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation? Some of our Divines affirm, and some deny it; disagreeing in form of words; but agreeing as to the sum of the matter. But that the Truth may be more evident, we will comprehend our Judgment in this matter, in these conclusions.
Concl. 1. In our conflicts with the Papists about Justification, it is not meet or safe to use or admit these propositions: Good Works are necessary to justification: Or good Works are necessary to Salvation.
For though they may be reduced to a sound sense by using explications; yet when they are nakedly propounded, the Papists always mean that works are necessary as causes by their own true and proper worthiness Meritorious of man's Salvation: which is most false.
Concl. 2. In popular Sermons to the ignorant people, the foresaid propositions are either wholly to be avoided, or to be used together with clear explications—For perhaps they will think that this assertion hath this meaning, that it intimateth▪ that man is justified or saved by the virtue and merit of his good works.
Concl. 3. Good works are not to us necessary to Salvation, if by good works we understand works exactly good and perfect to the Rule of the Law.
I explain it: By works exactly good and perfect, I mean such as man not yet fallen could have performed, because the Decalogue may exact them even of fallen man under pain of eternal damnation. This perfection did consist especially in two things The first is, that man could perform good works with his whole heart, and with plenary love, no lust diminishing the due fervor of the heart, or aspersing any blot on these works. The latter is that the same man entire, could do good works in a perpetual and uninterrupted tenor, without any evil admixed or intervening. That these two are required to works legally good, is plain, Gal. 3. 10, &c. Works therefore legally good, and necessary to Salvation by the legal • ovenant, are those that flow from a pure and full love of God, and are used in a constant tenor to the very last breath, without the intermixture of any evil work in the mean time. I say that such good works are not at all necessary to the Justification or Salvation of the Regenerate—
Concl. 4. No good works are to the Regenerate necessary to salvation or Justification, if by necessary, we mean, necessary under the reason of a meritorious cause.
Concl. 5. Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationem, ut Conditiones concurrentes vel percursoriae, licet non sint necessaria ut causae efficientes aut Meritoriae.
In these good Works, I reckon those internal ones which with God are of great moment, though they be not apparent to the eyes of men; as to grieve for sin, to detest sin, humbly to subject ones self to God, to fly to God's mercy, to fix our hope in Christ the Mediator, to resolve upon a new life, and other such like. For God's mercy justifieth not stocks, that is, such as do nothing; nor horses and mules, that is, such as kick against it, and obstinately adhere to their lusts: but men, and those pricked and contrite, and such as follow the conduct of the Word and Spirit of God.
Conclu. 6. God Works are necessary to the retaining and conserving the state of Justification; Not as causes, which of themselves effect or merit this conservation: but as means or Conditions, without which God will not conserve the grace of Justification in men.
For as no man receiveth that general Justification which dischargeth from the guilt of all foregoing sins, but on the concurrence of Repentance, Faith, a purpose of a new life, and other actions of the same kind; so no man retaineth a state free from guilt in respect of following sins, but by means of the same actions of believing in God, calling on God, mortifying the flesh, daily repenting and sorrowing for sins daily committed. The reason why all these are required on our part, is this: Because these cannot be still absent, but their opposites will be present, which are contrary to the nature of a Justified man.—As therefore to the conservation of natural life it is necessarily required, that a man carefully avoid fire, water, precipices, poisons and other things destructive to the health of the body; so to the conserving of spiritual life, it is necessarily required that a man avoid Incredulity, Impenitency, and other things that are destructive and contrary to the salvation of souls; which cannot be avoided unless the opposite and contrary actions be exercised. And these actions do not conserve the life of Grace properly and of themselves, by touching the very effect o • conservation; but improperly and by accident, by excluding and removing the cause of destruction.
Conclu. 7. The good Works of the Justified are necessary to salvation, by necessity of Order, not of Causality: or more plainly, as the way ordinated to everlasting life, not as a meritorious cause of everlasting Life.
OF the name of merit, see what I cited before: to which add cap. 54. p. 571, 572.
We come now to explain the Opinion of our Divines: wherein observe especially this thing: Though our Divines do now abstain from the word merit, which the Fathers frequently use, yet they do it, not that they dissent from the Fathers, but lest they consent with the Papists, who against all antiquity, do violently draw that word to a pernicious and heretical sense. For that which the Fathers meant by the word Merit, to wit, the work of a Believer and regenerate per on, endued with a supernatural goodness, in supernatural Order, grateful and acceptable to God, and ordinated by the Promise of the most bountiful God, to the gracious Rewards of this life and that to come, All this our Divines have always granted. We do therefore fight against, not the bare name of Merit, in a harmless sense frequently used of old by the Fathers, but the proud and false opinion of Merit of Condignity, brought lately by the Papists into the Church of God. See Bucer in Colloq. Ratis. p. 565. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. in 4 qu. of good Works, p. 185. Calvin. Institut. l. 3. c. 17. Sect. 3.
WEE ever granted that an endeavor of mortification and study of sanctification are necessary to salvation, as an Antecedent Condition: but the act of mortification as it is said to be ours, is not required as a cause properly so called, but as a Causa sine qua non, or removing that which prohibits, to which the reason of causality is but improperly given. For such causes do not reach or cause the effect itself, but only something previous or connected with the effect.
IN like manner, because God hath Promised the Reward Eternal to the poor Works of Believers; when the last Judgment comes, he will say, Come, inherit the Kingdom; for I was hungry, &c. But he is stark mad with pride who will hence infer with the Jesuits, that a bit of bread, or draught of cold water given to Christ's poor Members, is the efficient cause or truly meritorious of such infinite glory. We say therefore, that Good Works are Motives to which God hath respect in giving the heavenly Reward, because of his own Ordination and Promise; but not that they are the efficient causes of this Reward, by their own dignity and efficacy.
THe Works of the Regenerate have an Ordination to the Rewards of this life and that to come. 1. Because God hath freely promised (according to the good pleasure of his will) the Rewards of this life and that to come, to the good Works of the faithful and regenerate, 1 Tim. 4. 8. Gal. 6. 8. Mat. 20. 8.
2. They have a certain Ordination, or at least, an Aptitude to be Ordinated to the divine Rewards, from the very Condition of the Worker.
3. They have an Ordination to the Rewards from the Condition of the works themselves.
See the rest.
DAre any Arminian affirm that Remission of sin is effected by Faith? (or is the effect of Faith) although that Remission befall none but Believers. You will say, Faith is at least somewhat prerequisite for the obtaining Remission of sin. Let it be so: and for that reason let it be called an effect of Faith: But only in the kind (or nature) of a Dispositive Cause.
BEyond Controversy, Good Works are a Dispositive cause of salvation.
And that Faith is a Condition of salvation, doth nothing hinder but that it may bea means also to obtain salvation. Yea every Condition of this kind hath the nature of a means: and every moral means hath the nature of a Condition in respect of the end. For without the due means the end cannot be attained: And the performance of a Condition hath the nature of a means to the attaining of that which is under a condition propounded to us to be obtained.]
[Yea, I say, that faith is on no other account, a means, then because God hath appointed to save men by faith, and to save none at age without faith. For such kind of means is no means but by Divine Ordination. For the word Means, is of more common (or large) signification then the word condition. For every means is not a condition, though every condition be a means. But a means of obtaining somewhat by Contract or • ovenant, that is a condition. And to constitute such a means, is in the power of the Contractor: especially in the power of a superior stipulating with an inferior. Wherefore when God saw it meet not to save men but by faith, and to save all true believers; from that constitution of God it is that faith becomes a means of Salvation.]
As for the causes of Salvation, not only faith, but also repentance and good works as fruits worthy repentance do by God's ordination go before Salvation in the adult, and that as causes; Not indeed Meritorious, as neither is faith in Christ such a cause: but as preparative causes, and previous dispositions.
THe Ordination of Salvation might be absolute, though the bestowing of Salvation be not absolute, but on condition, not only of the impetration of it by blood on Christ's part, but also of Faith and Repentance on our part.]
[To the attaining of which end, there was necessary as the impetration of Salvation made by blood on Christ's part, so faith and Repentance on our part: and that is because God hath appointed to bestow Salvation on us by way of reward.]
[It lieth on all Elect to seek Salvation, not only by faith , but by works also, in that without doubt Salvation is to be given by way of reward, whereby God will reward not only our faith, but also all our good works.]
TWiss against Cotton pag. 6 • . [It seems you desire to shape the promises of God in the Covenant of Grace and of Works in so different a manner, that the one may seem to be Absolute, the other Conditional. Whereas they are of the same nature in both,] And page 40. [Was there no more in God's intention when he elected some, then the manifestation of the riches of his glorious Grace? Did not God purpose also to manifest the glory of his Remunerative Justice? Is it not undeniable that God will bestow Salvation on all his Elect, (of ripe years) by way of Reward and Crown of righteousness, which God the Righteous judge will give? &c. 2 Tim. 4. 2 Thes. 1. It is great pity this is not considered, as usually it is not: Especially for the Momentous consequence thereof in my judgment: Sufficient if I mistake not, to have stifled this opinion following touching Reprobation in the very conception of it.
FRom this Witness I conclude. 1. That he abhorred to call faith an efficient cause of justification: Therefore it is no Instrumental Efficient in his opinion. 2. That faith is the cause of Justification and works of Salvation, which is more then I say. 3. That faith and works are causes of one and the same kind, viz. Dispositive: (which I take to be no proper cause) 4. That Faith, Repentance and Works are the conditions of Salvation. 5. That the reason why faith and other duties are means of Salvation, is because God hath freely appointed them to be the conditions and means thereof, and so not formally vel proxime from the receptive nature, or instrumentality of faith. 6. That it is as a condition of Contract or Covenant that Faith and Repentance are means of Salvation, and therefore it is of right to Salvation that they are conditions, seeing it is right which the Covenant gives. 7. And though he say that Justification is only by faith without works, yet he speaks plainly of our being put into a justified State: and so I say so as much as he. But if right to Salvation be on condition of obedience, then doubtless Justification at Judgment will pass on that condition. To be Justified, will be to have our right to Impunity and Salvation cleared and determined. 8. That we must needs seek Salvation by good works. 9. That the blood of Christ and the works of man are by him both made conditions of Salvation. 10. That Salvation is the Reward both of faith and good works. 11. That the Covenant of Grace is not absolute, anymore then the Covenant of Works: but as to that of the same nature. 12. That it was God's design in the Covenant of Grace, not only to glorify the riches of Grace, but also to glorify his Rewarding Justice, and that it is great pity that this is not usually considered as being a matter of great moment. So much for Dr. Twisse.
6. MElancthon, Tom. 2. loc. de operib. qu. 4. Nova obedientia est necessaria necessitate ordinis causae & effectus, item necessitate debiti seu mandati: Item necessitate retinendae fidei, & vitandi poenas temporaeles & aeternas. ]
Idem in Epist. edit. Lugdun. 1647. pag. 453. [ Non satis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explicata res est cum dicis [etsi tota res pendet à miserecordia, tamen agnitio peccatorum est secunda causa Remissionis] Haec sunt perplexa: rectius illud erat [solum miserecordiam esse causam efficientem, propriam & immediatam Remissionis: Sed agnitionem esse aut praecedens quiddam, aut certe causam sine qua non, ut ego loquor: Sed causam secundam nemo sic apellat. ]
Idem ib. Epist. 19. pag. 455. Ea de re dum nuper inspicio scholasticos (nam initio 4. Sent. in 1. Qu. de hac ipsa appellatione disputant, &c.) tamen miratus sum judicium quorundam, qui senserunt meritum tantùm esse causam sine qua non: Hi mihi perquam verecunde loquuti videntur. ]
Et pag. 170. Georg. Major. defendit. Et epist. eadem pag. 438. [ Cordatus urbem, vicinas etiam regiones, & ipsam aulam adversus me concitat, propterea quod in explicanda controversia Justificationis, dixi, Novam obedientiam necessariam esse ad salutem. Scis quomodo, quam diligenter haec, & quam distinct conatus sum tractare. ]
Ibid. pag. 446. [ Et titulus de poenitentia commodior est quàm de Justification: Saepe enim animadverti nostros cum de poenitentia dicitur, aequioribus animis audire laudes operum, quàm cum putant de Justification, dici: Cum hi loci plane sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vicini ut Graeci dicunt. ]
IDem. Apolog. Confess. Aug. pag. ( mihi) 56 [Quare Fides appellari Justitia potest, quia est illud quod imputatur ad Justitiam, ut cum Paulo loquamur, quacun{que} tandem in parte hominis ponatur: Id enim nihil impedit imputationem divinam. ]
IDem. ibid. pag. 18. Ita fides quae gratis accipit Remissionem peccatorum, quia • pponit mediatorem & propitiatorem Christum irae Dei, non opponit nostra merita, aut dilectionem nostram, quia fides est vera cognitio Christi, & utitur beneficiis Christi, & regenerate corda, & praecedit legis impletionem.
NEw obedience is necessary by necessity of order of the cause and effect, also by necessity of duty or command, also by necessity of retaining faith, and avoiding punishments temporal and eternal.]
The matter is not artificially enough explained when you say, [though the whole matter depend upon many, yet the confession of sins is a second cause of Remission.] These things are perplexed. This were righter, that mercy alone is the proper and immediate efficient cause of Remission; But confession is either some Antecedent, or a causa sine qua non, as I (use to) speak: But a second cause no man so calls it.]
Concerning this matter, when I lately looked into the Schoolmen (for in the beginning of 4. Sent. 1. Q. they dispute of this Appellation) I wondered at the Judgment of some of them, who thought that Merit is only a causa sine qua non: These seem to me to speak very modestly.
[ Cordatus stirreth up against me the City, and also the neighbor Countries, and also the Court itself, because in explaining the controversy of Justification I said, that new obedience was necessary to Salvation. You know in what manner, and how distinctly I endeavored to handle these things.]
The title of repentance is more commodious then of Justification ( viz. to commend works without offense) For I have oft observed that our men do with more equal minds hear the praises of works, when we treat of Repentance, then when they think we treat of Justification: When these two places are merely neighbors, or of kin.
WHerefore faith may be called righteousness, because it is that thing which is imputed to righteousness, (that we may speak with Paul ) in what part of man soever it be placed: For that nothing hindereth God's imputation.
THus faith which freely accepteth Remission of sins, because it opposeth the Mediator & Propitiator Christ to the Anger of God, doth not oppose our merits, or our love, because faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and useth the benefits of Christ, and regenerateth hearts, and precedeth the fulfilling of the Law.
THat which I conclude hence, as Melanchthon's opinion, is, 1. That he thought that confession of sin was a causa sine qua non of pardon, and he used this as the fittest phrase. 2. That he used the word Merit (as he did in the August. Confess. ) which I do not. 3. That he took those schoolmen to speak modestly that said man's merits were but a causa fine qua non. 4. That he was vexed with turbulent spirits for giving so much to Works, and Accused, and Defamed, of which you may see more in his life by Camerarius and Melch. Adamus. 5. Through men's peevishness he was fain to choose the common place of Repentance, to preach the same Doctrine which men could not bear when he preached of Justification. 6. That he saith, faith is our Righteousness, because it is imputed to Righteousness: and to impute to Righteousness is usually taken for Justifying.
7. CAlvin Justitut. lib. 3. cap. 17. §. 8. Obliterata igitur omnium transgressionum culpa quibus impediuntur homines ne quicquam Deo gratum proferant, sepulto etiam imperfectionis vitio, quod bona quo{que} opera faedare solet; quae fiunt à fidelibus bona opera Justa censentur, vel (quod idem est) in Justitiam imputantur. ]
Idem Harmon▪ Evang. in Luc. 16. 1. [ Sed alius finis nobis propositus esse debet, quàm ut soluto redemptionis pretio effugiamus Dei judicium: viz. ut liberalitas been sancte{que} locata superfluas impensas frenet, &c. deinde ut nostra erga fratres humanitas Dei miserecordiam in nos provocet. ]
Ibid. Ver. 9. [ Benigne erogando, favorem apud Deum acquiri docet, qui se miserecordibus & humanis vicissim miserecordem fore promisit, &c. Respicit ergo dominus, non ad personas, sed ad opus ipsum, ut beneficentia nostra, etiamsi in homines ingratos inciderit, nobis coram Deo respondeat. ]
IDem in Genes. 15. 6. Deni{que} non minoris stuporis quàm impudentiae est, quum hoc illi imputatum fuisse dicitur in Justitiam, alium sensum comminisci quàm fidem Abrahae fuisse pro Justitia apud Deum. Vid. ultr.
THe blame of all our transgressions being blotted out, by which men are hindered from bringing forth anything acceptable to God; and the vice of our imperfection being buried, which also useth to defile our good works; the good works which are done by the faithful, are esteemed righteous, or (which is the same) are imputed for Righteousness. ]
Also in his Harm. on Luke 16. 1. [But another end ought to be propounded by us, then that by paying a price of redemption, we may escape God's Judgment: viz. that our liberality well and holily placed, may bridle our superfluous expenses, &c. and then that our humanity towards our brethren may provoke God's mercy to us.]
[He teacheth us, that by bountifully laying out, we get favor with God, who hath promised to be merciful to the merciful and human, &c. The Lord therefore respecteth not the persons, but the work itself; that our bounty, though it may light upon unthankful men, may answer for us before God.
(Yea on Gen. 15. 6. Calvin saith that faith is not the efficient, but the formal cause of our righteousness, which is more then I will say.) Also he makes hope the Justifying act.
Lastly, it is no less stupidity then impudency when this is said to be imputed to him for righteousness, to imagine any other sense, then that Abraham's faith was (taken) for righteousness with God.
HEnce I conclude, 1. That God imputeth faith for righteousness, according to Calvin's judgment (concerning which I have spoke my own before) 2. That he saith that God taketh our works to be Righteousness, or imputeth them for Righteousness. 3. That he taketh it to be all one▪ to Judge works Righteous, and to impute them for or to righteousness. And therefore they that confess them to be an inherent righteousness, must confess them to be so imputed. 5. Let them consider what follows hence, that confess justification and imputation of righteousness to be all one: Whether it will not be as excusable or warrantable to say, that we are (so far) justified by those works, as to say that they are imputed to us to or for righteousness? as Calvin here doth. 6. He doth in these and in the other passages of [Provoking God's mercy to us] [Acquiring God's favor] [Their answering for us before God] say more in terms (and more harshly) and as much in sense, for the exalting of works, as ever I did, if I understand him.
8. PLacaeus in Thes. Salmuriens. Vol. 1. de Justif. pag. 32. 34. §. 37. [ Fide igitur Justificamur, non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae, aut opere quod suo quodam pretio aut merito Justificationem nobis impetret, aut dispositione animae ad introductionem Justitiae inhaerentis: Sed tanquam Conditione faederis gratiae, quam à nobis Deus idcirco exigit loco conditionis faederi • legalis (quae nobis earnis vitio facta est impossibilis) quo • ea nihil aliud sit quàm doni Justitiae in Christo Jesu per Evangelium nobis oblati Acceptatio; qua sit ex Dei pacto gratuito ut illa Justitia nostra sit. ]
WE are therefore Justified by faith, not as by any part of righteousness, or a work which by some price of its own, or Merit, doth obtain us Justification, or as a disposition of soul to the introduction of inherent righteousness: But as the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, which God therefore requires of us instead of the condition of the Legal Covenant, (which is through the fault of the flesh, become to us impossible) because it is nothing else but the acceptance of the gift of righteousness in Jesus Christ offered to us by the Gospel; whereby it comes to pass by God's free Covenant that that righteousness is ours.
IN these few words are closely couched these ten points, which I maintain. 1. That it is not as any part our righteousness of the Law of works, that faith justifieth. 2. Nor from any excellency in the act or habit, as the nearest reason of its interest in justification. 3. That Christ's righteousness is the matter or meriting cause of our righteousness. 4. Faith is the acceptance of Christ as offered, and righteousness with him. 5. That the Gospel-Covenant is God's deed of gift, bestowing right to Christ, and righteousness with him. 6. That therefore constitutive Justification is performed by the Gospel-Covenant as the Instrument. 7. That Christ himself is first given by this Covenant, and righteousness but in him. 8. That the nearest or formal reason of faiths interest in Justification, is, its being the condition of the justifying Covenant, freely by the Donor and Rector, Assigned to that Office. 9. That the reason why faith was deputed to this office by God, (so far as man may give a reason of his actions) was from the special aptitude it had to this special work, it being essentially the acceptance of Christ and life freely given. So that this is but its aptitude to the Office, and the reason of its designation thereto, and not the nearest or formal reason of its interest. 10. That this condition comes in the place of perfect obedience, which was the condition of the first Covenant: but not from the same reasons, nor to the same nearest ends.
But the special point that I cite this Author for, is his exact discovery how far works justify, and of the twofold righteousness thereto necessary, and the reconciling Paul and James, as in part the words following show.
IDem ibid. §. 41. Id ipsum fortasse hac ration commodiùs explicabitur. Opponitur Justificatio accusationi. A duabus autem accusationibus premimur in foro Divino. Pimùm objicitur, Nos esse peccatores: hoc est, reos violatae conditionis quae faedere legali lata est. Deinde objicitur, Nos esse Infideles, hoc est, Non praestitisse conditionem faederis Gratiae, viz. fidem. Ab accusatione priore, solâ fide Justificamur, qua Christi gratiam & Justitiam amplectimur; à Posteriore Justificamur etiam operibus, quatenus iis fides ostenditur. Ad posteriorem accusationem respiciens Jacobus affirmavit merito ex operibus Justificari hominem, & non ex fide tantùm. Paulus vero respiciens ad priorem, solâ fide hominem sine operibus Justificari, &c.
Sect. 42. In die judicii quoniam Faedus Gratiae vim legis seu juris obtinet (promulgatum enim est in toto orbe terrarum per praecones idoneos ) Id unum probandum erit, nimirum nos habuisse conditionem faederis Gratiae, scilicet Fidem. Ita{que} proferenda erunt in medium opera, praesertim charitatis, tanquam illius conditionis, hoc est, fidei effecta at{que} argumenta demonstrativa, ut vulgo loquuntur, à posteriori.
THis will perhaps be more fitly thus explained. Justification is opposed to accusation. And at God's Bar we are pressed with a twofold Accusation: First it is objected, that we are sinners: that is, guilty of violating the condition which was imposed in the Legal Covenant. Next it is objected, that we are Unbelievers, that is, that we did not perform the condition of the Covenant of Grace, viz. Faith. From the former Accusation, we are Justified by faith only, whereby we embrace Christ's Grace and Righteousness. From the latter, we are justified also by works, as faith is shown by them; James respecting the latter accusation, did justly affirm that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. But Paul respecting the former, saith that a man is Justified by faith without works, &c.]
In the day of Judgment, because the Covenant of Grace shall obtain the force of a Law or Rule of Judgment (for it hath been promulgated by fit Heralds in the whole world) This one thing will be to be proved, to wit, that we had the condition of the Covenant of Grace, that is, faith. Therefore works must be openly produced, especially of charity, as the effects and arguments demonstrative, as they commonly say, à posteriori, of that condition, that is, of faith.
IN these words is the sum of most that I am blamed for. Here is the twofold righteousness opposite to a twofold accusation, that is, of non-performance of the conditions of each Covenant: one accusation true, which Christ's satisfaction only can justify us against as the matter, and faith is but the condition of that Justification: the other is a false accusation, viz. that we are unbelievers, from which faith must Justify us as the very matter of our righteousness, and works as proofs. To which may be added, that Repentance and Obedience being secondary parts of the condition of Salvation, on the same ground as we may need a Justification against the charge of final unbelief, we may also need one against the charge of final impenitency and disobedience; and therefore by these materially must be justified against that charge. We see here also that the Judgment is not appointed to inquire whether Christ have satisfied for us, but whether we have performed the condition of the New Covenant: and therefore he saith this is the one thing then to be proved: And that the New Covenant will be the Law by which we must be herein Judged. I desire the Reader to peruse all the rest of that excellent disputation; I will transcribe but a few lines more to show that the continuance of Justification is in the first gift of it intimated to be on condition we afterward live holily.
IDem ibid § 47. Non aequum fuit ut tanti beneficii compos fieret▪ qui id lubens non agnosceret, se{que} agnoscere profiteretur; quae agnitio fides est. 5. Nec fuit aequum ut impunitate proposita, peccandi licentia augeretur; Sed decuit Just • ficari impium, Ea Lege, ut in posterum recedat à peccato, sectetur{que} sanctimoniam, sine qua nemo videbit Deum.
9. AMyraldus goes the same way. Vol. 2. disp. de satisfact. pag. 63. §. 9. [Quia resipiscentia à peccato passim in scriptura sacra statuitur pro conditione remissionem antecedente, & causa illius sine qua non, sic illa suas hortationes instituit, ut ad veram resipiscentiam, veram{que} sanctimoniam impellat consequendae remissionis ergo.
10. LUd. Cappellus ibid. Vol. 2. p 110 Sect. 39. Quum antem inter se comparantur & distinguuntur seu distinct à nobis considerant • r salutis illius part • s, tum fides respectu Justificationis rationem habet conditionis praerequisitae: Nemo enim Justificatur nisi per fidem: respectu autem Sanctificationis habet se ut ejus causa: Fide enim pur • fica • tur corda: Glorificatio autem utrius{que} tum Just • ficationis tum Sanctificationis, effectum est & consequence necessarium.
IT was not equal that he should enjoy so great a benefit that would not willingly acknowledge it, and profess himself to acknowledge it: which acknowledgement is faith. Nor was it equal that impunity being propounded, the liberty of sinning should be increased: but it was meet that the ungodly should be Justified on this condition, that for the time to come he depart from sin, and follow holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
BEcause Repentance from sin is frequently in the holy Scripture made a condition going before remission▪ and a cause without which we shall not have it, it so ordereth its exhortations that it may drive us to true Repentance, and true Sanctity, that so we may obtain Remission. So the prophets, John the Baptist, &c.
WHen the parts of this Salvation are compared among themselves, and distinguished, or distinctly by us considered, then faith in respect of Justification hath the nature of a prerequisite condition: For no man is Justified but by faith: But in respect of Sanctification, it hath the nature of a cause of it; for by faith are men's hearts purified. But glorification is the effect and necessary consequent of both, Justification and Sanctification.
I Will say no more of these two Divines, because I suppose them also the approvers of the forecited words of Placaus, the book going under the name of all three.
11. PHilip Codurcus a Learned Protestant and Professor of Divinity in an University of theirs in France, wrote a Book purposely to reconcile the Protestants and Papists in the point of Justification, and to show how small the difference between them was in his judgment, in comparison of what it is esteemed: I could never get or see the Book, but as I find frequent mention of it in others, so I find the scope of it, and many of those Theses that are disliked, recited by Guil. Rivet. in his Vindic. Justificat. Wherein he labors to confute him, and shows himself much offended at him: And Codurcus thereby instead of reconciling, incurd the heavy censure of his own party. I mention him not as approving of a book that I have not seen, but to show that other Protestants have gone much further in this then ever I did.
12. TEstardus, Who though he be censured by some for following Cameron in the middle way about Universal Redemption and objective grace, yet is blamed by none that ever I heard of, for anything that I shall allege his consent in: And indeed is a most judicious writer.
SYnops. Doctr. Natur. & Grat. pag. 164. Thes. 201. ▪Peccator consideratur vel absolute & in se tantum: Eo sensu nemo in Dei judicio ex operibus legis justificabitur, &c. Vel comparate cum alio peccatore; & in hoc sensu quidam in Dei judicio Justificabuntur ex operibus prae aliis, &c. Deinde & id sedulo notandum est & attente: Deum nullibi dici in scriptura redditurum in judicio secundum opera legis, sed tantum secundum opera: Nempe vox [Opus] aliquando & sapius pertinet ad Justitiam legalem quae absolutissima esse debet, ut Justificet; qualis non reperitur in peccatore: Aliquando designat omnem hominis obedientiam, etiam eam quae praecepto credendi in Deum miserecordem, & resipiscendi, praestatur: Quo sensu fides ipsa & resipiscentia, sub hoc genere continentur. Eo certe modo intelligenda veniunt, non priore, omnia loca quibus Deus secundum opera unicui{que} retributurus dicitur. Nempe reddet unicui{que} Deus secundum fidem, poenitentiam at{que} bona opera quae fidem sequuntur, & infidelitatem, indurationem, reliquis peccatis superadditam. Deus enim ex quo gratiae faedus cum hominibus pepegit, neminem vult deinceps ex lege absolute & simpliciter judicare; sed ex conditione novi faederis quae legis rigorem temperat. At{que} haec distinctio maximi est usus, & diligenter observanda in Orthotomia verbi. Nam cum apud peccatorem sub legis jugo trementem, sub peccati ponder laborantem, res agitur, tum ad consolationem ejus Iustificatio ex fide in sanguine Christi illi proponenda est: Cum vero apud carnaliter securum & in peccatis lascivientem, tum ad excitandam conscientiam, urgendum est Iudicium Dei ex operibus in magna illa die instituendum.
A Sinner is considered either absolutely and in himself only; In that sense none shall be Justified by the works of the Law in God's Judgment, &c. Or comparatively with another sinner; & in this sense some shall in God's judgment be Justified by works before others, &c. And then this is to be diligently and attentively noted: that God is nowhere said in Scripture to render in Judgment according to the Works of the Law; But only according to Works: For the word [Works] doth sometime and most frequently belong to legal righteousness, which must be most perfect, that it may Justify : Such is not to be found in any sinner. Sometime it signifieth all man's obedience, even that which is performed to the precept of believing in the merciful God, and of repenting. In which sense faith itself and repentance are contained under this kind. In this sense, and not in the former are all those places to be understood, in which it is said that God will render to every man according to his works. For God will render to every man according to his faith, repentance and good works which follow faith, or to his infidelity, and hardening superadded to his other sins. For since God hath made with man the Covenant of Grace, he will afterwards Judge no man absolutely and simply by the Law, but by the condition of the New Covenant which tempereth the rigor of the Law. And this distinction is of very great use, and diligently to be observed in the right dividing of the word; For when we have to do with a sinner that trembleth under the yoke of the Law, laboreth under the weight of sin, then Justification by faith in the blood of Christ is to be propounded to him for his consolation; But when we deal with one Carnally secure, and sporting himself in sin, then must we urge the Judgment of God which in that great day shall proceed according to Works, for the excitation of his Conscience.
HEnce you have the distinction between Legal and Evangelical righteousness, and what those works be, v • z. Evangelical, which men shall be Judged, and consequently Justified according to: with much more observable matter closely couched.
13. LUdovicus de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. and Iac. 2. hath so much to this purpose that I must crave the patience of the Reader, that I may make a larger recitation of it: not only as a Testimony, but as an explication of this matter, it will be useful.
ROm. 8. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Beza. Ut Ius illud legis in nobis impleretur: Vulg. & Erasm. Justificatio Legis, &c. Ius, Iustitia, Iustificatio legis in eo consistit ut per omnimodam cum lege conformitatem justi at{que} inculpati habeamur coram Deo. Id obtinere non potuit dum per legem peccatum viveret ac regnaret. Sed damnato in carne Christi peccato, at{que} ipsa lege damnationem hanc approbante, per plenariam Christi capitis nostri cum lege conformitatem, • usti at{que} inculpati in eodem capite, fatente lege, habemur. Nec hoc tantùm. sed ut membra capiti sint conformia, fluit ex eo in nos spiritus regenerationis, qui in nobis quo{que} ipsis Iustificationem legis perficiat. Is nos ita regenerate, ut mente nostra lege Dei delectemur. Quodq, in carne reliquumest peccati ita paulatim abolet, ut tandem sine omni macula aut labe ab ipsa lege simus agnoscendi. Universa ita{que} haec Justitia, tum imputata quam per fidem habemus in capite Christo, tum inhaerens quam per Regenerationem habemus in nobis ipsis, est quidem Justitia legis, sed neutra est Ex lege, neutra per legem: verum utra{que} ex sanguine & spiritu Christi. Et prima quidem ea est de qua Rom 4. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3 9. qua nos Deus et si in nobis ipsis legi adhuc deforms, plene tamen, ipsius etiam legis testimonio, Justificat, eiq pro omnino conformibus habet in capite Christo, de qua Justification Apostolus supra, cap. 3. & 4. & 5. multis disputavit. Altera est de qu • Rom 6. 13. Ephes. 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. qua nos Deus per Regenerationem in nobis etiam ipsis legi ex parte conformatos, ex parte nunc Justificat, & indies Justificat magis ac magis, prout incrementum capit Regeneratio, ac Justificabit plene, ubi perfectio advenerit: de qua Justification agitur Jac. 2. 21, 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc Justificationem opera legis • ngrediuntur: immo sola eam constituunt: Ut primam constituit sola fides, id est Justitia Christi fide imputata, non opera: sic alteram constituunt opera, non fides. Nec tamen propterea ea est ex lege, sed ex gratia. Non enim eam lex admittit ex authoritate potestatis suae, quae nihil nisi perfect sanctum laudare potest, sed ex authoritate Gratiae Christi, cui nunc ancillatur lex; & cujus Jussu imperfecta etiam fidelium opera laudat, probat, & pro conformibus sibi habet; quam gratiam fide quidem amplectimur, istâ{que} fide prompti at{que} alacres reddimur, ut Justitiae legi operam demus: Non tamen proprie sides, sed opera secundam istam Justitiam constituunt.
Duplex ergo est Justificatio. Una qua in nobis ipsis peccatores, Justificamur coram Deo extra nos. Altera qua Justificati jam coram Deo extra nos, Justificamur coram ipso in nobis. Harum prima est causa secundae: Secund • e • fectus & demonstratio primae. Prima fide, altera operibus peragitur. Utra{que} concurrere debet ut Justificatio legis in nobis compleatur. Annon • ergo, inquies, Justificatio quaedam est ex lege, si est ex operibus legis? Non est inquam. Quia opera de quibus agimus, etsi sint legis, quoad normam quam sequuntur, quodve à lege sint praescripta; ration tamen originis & virtutis unde proficiscuntur, non sunt legis, sed Gratiae & spiritus. Potissimum autem quia ex lege Justificari dicuntur qui ex operibus tanquam ex impleta faederis conditione Justificantur; quod tum demum fit ubi opera omnimoda perfection legi respondent. Tum enim lex hominem Justificat, sicut maritus uxorē quae nunquam ipsi fidem violavit: ut enim ex jure conjugali proficiscitur ista uxoris Justificatio; ita ex simili Jure, quod in faedere operum Deus inter legem suam & hominem constituit, proficiscitur hominis illius Justificatio, qui inviolatam legi fidem servavit, &c.
Agamus plenius de hac altera Justificationis specie. Est e • qua nos Deus ex regeneratione nobis data, sincer{que} fidei operibus quae edidimus, absolvit à crimine hypocriseos, profanitatis at{que} impietatis, nos{que} non amplius habet pro mortuis in peccatis, servis Diaboli & filiis mundi, sed pro vere fidelibus, suis filiis, ad imaginem suam restauratis, vita sua donatis, in{que} regnum suum translatis: quod Dei judicium lex quo{que} approbat: Non quod satisfactum sibi operibus nostris existimet, sed quia dominio suo orbata, Christo{que} domino nostro subjecta, non potest, non laudare opera quae ex fide in Christum spiritu{que} ejus proficiscuntur, ea{que} etsi imperfecta, pro vera Justitia habere, eos{que} pro vere Justis, gratis{que} Deo filiis, qui ea patrant. Disquiratur hic, quandoquidem Scriptura utram{que} de qua egimus Iustitiam crebro & aperte nobis tribuit, ac propterea utrius{que} ration Iustis non apud homines solum, sed apud Deum Censendi sumus; • n • on, quo sensu Iustificari ex operibus dicimur, Jac. 2. & Iustificandi ex sermonibu • , Mat 12. codem imputari nobis opera in Iustitiam dici possint? Non uti{que} prout fides imputatur in Iustitiam; Sed sicut factum Phineazi imputatum ipsi dicitur in Iustitiam, Ps. 106. 31. Alia enim est imputatio in Iustitiam, qua, quam Christus pro nobis praestit •• obedient • a, habetur tanquam nostra, inde{que} nos injusti ac peccatores absolvimur ab irat▪ Dei vindicta▪ • bi sola fides amp • ectens istam • bedientiam imputatur in Iustitiam. Alia est imputatio Iustitiae quâ à nobis, per fidem Iustificatis & spiritu S. regenitis, proficiscuntur pietatis opera, quae etsi imperfecta, merito{que} culpanda ac rejicienda, habentur tamen à Deo per gratiam propter Christum tanquam bona, Sancta, & Iusta, inde{que} absolvimur à criminatione nequitiae & fradulentiae, comparati{que} cum impiis ac profanis, Justificamur tanquam probi. Hic opera etiam imputantur in Justitiam.—Hinc porro nascuntur haec discrimina. Quod fidei imputati • est in Justitiam perfectam, talem qualis est obedientia Christi. Operum imputatio in imperfectam qualia sunt ipsa opera in hac vita. In illa satisfit rigori legis. In hac lex facta instrumentum Gratiae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sese{que} accommodat nobis. Illa imputatio causa est remissionis peccatorum, haec non item: quippe quae peccatis non ante remissis locum non haberet. In illa absolvitur peccator à reatu: In hac discernitur pius ab impio—Hic tanquam pius, quem interimpios viventē, cum{que} aliis aliquando coram tribunali Dei compariturū, exoper • bus pietatis pronunciat & pronunciabit haerede sui regni. Mat. 25. 34, 35. In illa judiciū fert Deu • de pretio sanguinis f • li▪ sui, quant • m id pro nobis val • at apud s • . In h • c judicium fert de collato nobis regenerationis dono, cujusmodi nempe nos eo nomine habeat. —
Prima in remission peccatorum per imputatam Christi obedientiam (consistit) Altera in Judicio Dei, quo dissimulatis propter Christum operum nostrorum defectibus, habet ea tanquam justa, & legi suae conformia, nos{que} inde pie Justos pronunciat. Secundum dictum, 1 Joh. 3. 7. Qui facit Justitiam justus est. Cuju • secundae justificationis fundamentum est quidem Justitia nobis inhaerens, verum non vi dignitatis suae, aut proportionatae ad justam Dei legem Sanctitatis, sed vi imputatae Christi Iustitiae, ex qua fluit, & cujus gratia tota nititur.—Asserit Apostolus, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10 ne{que} injustos, ne{que} scortatores, ne{que} Idololatras, ne{que} maechos, ne{que} molles, ne{que} qui cum masculis concumbunt, ne{que} fures, ne{que} avaros, ne{que} ebriosos, ne{que} convitiatores, ne{que} rapaces, regni Dei haeredes futuros; ab his ergo criminibus Justificari, id est, insontes pronunciari necesse est Christianos si salvi futuri sint. At{que} id • am factum affirmat Apostolus, Eratis inquit enim, haec quidam: Sed abluti estis, id est mundati ab istis sordibus: Sed sanctificati estis; id est, separati ab ejusmodi immunditionibus; Sed justificati estis, id est, insontes habemini, ne rei amplius istorum criminum agi possitis: id{que} in nomine Domini Jesu & per spiritum Dei nostri. De secunda Justification id intelligo, qua qui antea criminibus istis tenebantur, nunc regeniti in nomine Christi & per spiritum Dei, accusari amplius eorum non poterant, sed absolvi inde debebant. Id ipsum est quod Apostolus supra dixit, Rom. 6. 7. Qui mortuus est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Justificatus est à peccato: id est, ita ab eo liberatus ut accusari ampliu • tanquam servus peccati non possit, quippe qui non ut amicus sed ut Osor peccati est habendus. Ubi rursus notandum, primam Justification̄ esse à peccatis quorum sumus rei: secundum ve 〈…〉 b iis quo • um non sumus rei▪ Quumquis 〈…〉 atū commisit, reus •• , ne • •• stificatur inde, id est, non abs 〈…〉 itur ab ejus reatu, nis • per Remission • m peccatorum, quae est ex • ola fide. Sed do ti •• • ominem regenitum▪ qui cum ante R • generationem fuerit ebriosus, scortatur, &c. à tempore regenerationis destitit, ab istis peccatis: Is uti{que} eo ipso quod destitit, accusari eorum non potest ut ante. Iustificatus ita{que} est ab illis, id est, absolutus à non perpetratis: & haec Iustificatio revera est ex operibus: Quia enim sobrie & caste vixit, Iustificari omnino debet ab ebrietate & scortatione.—Ad secundam hanc Iustificationis speciem pertinet, quae Iustificatio causae vocari in scholis solet: ut David, Job, &c.— Eodem modo se adhuc res habet cum omnibus fidelibus. Quandoquidem enim Diabolus dicitur esse accusator fratrum accusans eos apud Deum dies ac noctes, Apoc. 12. 10. nec apud Deum tantum sed & in nostrismet saepe Conscientiis, quas hypocriseos suspitione labefactat, non raro & concutit, quasi minus sincera, immo simulata mente fidem pietatem{que} profiteremur, absolvi sane ab hac Accusatione, & Iustificari à falso hoc testimonio opus habemus apud Deum: Quod aliud sane est quàm Absolvi & Iustificari à reatu omnium nostrorum peccatorum quo obstricti sumus irae, justo{que} Dei Iudici • . Hoc primae est Iustificationis, & tantum fide peragitur in Christum; alterum est secundae, subsidium{que} p • tit ab operibus.
IDem in Jac. 2. 24. Videtis ergo ex operibus Justificari hominem, & non ex fide tantum. Facile hic locus co • ciliatur cum iis quae Paulus passim contra videtur disputare, si statuamus, quod est verissimum, Apostolum Iacobum non agere hic de una sola • ustificatione, quae partim fide, partim eperibus peragatur; Sed de duabus distinctis, quarum prior ex fide, & fide tantum, altera ex operibus est. Quum duplex instituatur Accusatio in fideles, una à Deo, lege & Conscientia, à quibus vere peccatorum multorum rei aguntur: altera à Diabolo & Improbis, à quibus falso hypocriseos, mercenarii animi, impietatis, ac nefariorum rei perhibentur; duplex requiritur Justificatio; una qua in se vere peccatores absolvuntur gratuito propter Christum, à Reatu suorum peccatorum, quae Iustificatio sola ex fide est sine operibus. Altera qua ut vere sanctificati & regenerati absolvuntur à falsis illis Diaboli & improborum criminationibus: quae Iustificatio petitur ex operibus. Jacobus urget utramque esse conjungendam, adeoque non Iustificari hominem ex side tantum, sed & ex operibus: id est, non sufficere ut Iustificetur ex fide à peccatis quae commisit, sed requiri porro ut Iustificetur etiam ex operibus à peccatis quorum falso accusatur, & à quibus per Regenerationem immunis est.
THe right, Righteousness and Justification consisteth in this, that by a perfect conformity to the Law we may be accounted righteous and unblameable before God. This could not be ob • ained while by the Law sin did live and reign: but sin being condemned in the flesh of Christ, and the Law itself approving this condemnation, by the plenary conformity of Christ our head with the Law, we are esteemed just and blameless in the same head, by the confession of the Law itself. And not only so, but that the members may be conform to the head, there floweth from him into us the spirit of Regeneration, which in us ourselves also may fulfill the Justification of the Law. He so Regenerateth us that in our minds we delight in the Law of God. And the sin that is left in our flesh, he so abolisheth by degrees, that at last we shall be acknowledged without any spot or blemish by the Law itself. All this righteousness therefore, both imputed, which we have by faith in Christ our head, and inherent which we have by Regeneration in ourselves, is indeed the righteousness of the Law; But neither of them from the Law, or by the Law: but both of them, from the blood and spirit of Christ. And the first is that which is mentioned Rom. 4. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 9. whereby God Justifieth us▪ even by the Testimony of the Law, and that fully, though in ourselves we are inconform to the Law, and he accounteth us as altogether conform in • hrist our head. Of which Justification the Apostle before at large disputeth, cap 3 & 4. & 5. The other is that of which Rom. 6. 13. Ep • . 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. whereby God doth partly now justify us, being in our ownselves conformed in part to the Law; and daily justifieth us more and more, as our Regeneration increaseth; and will fully Justify us when perfection is come. Of which Justification is spoken Jam. 2. 21, 24. Rev. 22. 11. Mat. 1. 2▪ 37. 1 King. 8. 32. The works of the Law do enter this Justification: Yea they only do constitute it: As faith alone doth constitute the first, that is, Christ's righteousness by faith imputed, not works: So works and not faith do constitute the latter. Yet is it not therefore of (or from) the Law, but from Grace. For the Law doth not admit it by the Authority of its own power, which can praise nothing but what is perfectly holy; but by the Authority of the Grace of Christ, whereto the Law is now a servant, and by whose command the Law commendeth, approveth and taketh as conformable to itself even the imperfect works of believers; which Grace we do embrace by faith, and by that faith are made prompt and cheerful to endeavor the righteousness of the Law: yet is it not properly faith, but works that constitute that second righteousness.
There is therefore a twofold Justification. One whereby, in ourselves being sinners, we are Justified before God, from without us: The other whereby being now Justified before God from without us, we are justified before him within ourselves. The first of these is the cause of the second. The second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is done by faith, the other by works. Both must concur that the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in us. But you will say, is there not then a Justification by the Law, if it be of the works of the Law? I say, No: Because the works which we speak of, though they are of the Law, as to the Rule which they follow, and as prescribed by the Law; Yet in respect of the Original and power whence they come, they are not of the Law, but of Grace and the Spirit. Specially because they are said to be Justified by the Law, who are justified by works, as by the condition of that Covenant fulfilled, which is then only done when works do by Universal perfection answer the Law. For then the Law Iustifieth a man, as a man doth his wife that never violated her faith to him. For as it is from conjugal right that this Justification of the wife proceeds; so from the like right, which God hath constituted in the Covenant of works, between his Law and man, proceeds the justification of that man, who hath inviolate kept his fidelity to the Law, &c.
Let us speak fullier of the second sort of justification. It is that whereby God, by Regeneration given us, and the works of sincere faith which we performed, absolveth us from the charge of Hypocrisy, Profaneness and impiety, and no longer takes us for men dead in sin, servants of the Devil, and children of the world, but for true believers, his sons •• stored to his image, endued with his life, and translated into his Kingdom: which Judgment of God, the Law also approveth. Not that it takes itself satisfied by our works; but because being bereaved of its Dominion, and subjected to Christ our Lord, it cannot choose but commend the works which come from faith in Christ and from his spirit, & account them for true righteousness, though they are imperfect; and them that perform them, for truly righteous, and sons pleasing to God. Let it be here inquired, seeing Scripture doth often and expressly ascribe to us both these righteousness we speak of, and therefore we are in respect of them both to be judged righteous, not only with men, but with God; Whether in the same sense, as we are said to be Justified by works, I am. 2. and to be justified by words, Mat. 12. Works may not be said to be imputed to us for Righteousness? Not indeed as faith is imputed to righteousness: but as the fact of Phineas is said to be imputed to him for righteousness,
Psal. 106. 31. For it is our imputation to righteousness, by which the obedience which Christ performed for us, is taken as ours, and thereby we unjust and sinners are absolved from the revenge of an angry God; there faith alone embracing that obedience, is imputed to righteousness. And it is another imputation of righteousness, when the works of piety, that come from ourselves, Justified by faith, and regenerate by the Holy Ghost, though imperfect and deservedly to be blamed and rejected, are yet taken of God by grace through Christ, as good, holy and just, and thence we are absolved from the charge of wickedness and guile, and, compared with the wicked and profane, are justified as honest. Here even works are imputed to righteousness. Hence arise these differences; That faiths imputation is to perfect righteousness, such as is the obedience of Christ; The imputation of works to imperfect, such as are works themselves in this life. In one the rigor of the Law is satisfied; In the other the Law being made the instrument of grace doth condescend and accommodate itself to us, that imputation is the cause of the Remission of sins: This not so, as having no place till sins are remitted. In that a sinner is absolved from guilt: in this the Godly is distinguished from the ungodly.—Here the person is considered as a Godly man, whom living among the ungodly, and being with others to appear before the Tribunal of God, he pronounceth, and will pronounce by his works of Godliness an heir of his Kingdom Mat. 25 34, 35. In the one God passeth Judgment of the price of his sons blood, how much it availeth us, with him. In the other, he passeth sentence of the gift of Regeneration bestowed on us; that is, how he esteemeth us because of it.—
The first consisteth in Remission of sin by Christ's obedience imputed. The other in that Judgment of God, whereby (overlooking through Christ the defect of our works) he esteemeth them righteous, and conform to his Law, and from thence pronounceth us piously righteous: According to the saying 1 John. 3. 7. He that doth righteousness is righteous. The Foundation of which second Justification, is indeed our inherent righteousness: But not by the force of its own Dignity, or a holiness proportioned to God's righ • eous Law; But by force of Christ's imputed righteousness, from which it flows, and on whose grace it wholly resteth.—The Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. that neither the unrighteous, nor Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Revilers, nor Extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God: It is therefore necessary for Christians to be Justified from these crimes, if they will be saved. And this the Apostle affirmeth was done; [For (saith he) such were some of you, but ye are washed, (that is, cleansed of these pollutions) but ye are Sanctified (that is, separated from this uncleanness;) but ye are justified (that is, ye are accounted guiltless) that ye may no more be accused as guilty of those crimes: and that in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. I understand this of the second Justification, by which they that before were under these crimes, being now regenerated in the name of Christ, and by the spirit of God, could no longer be accused of them, but ought to be absolved thence. This is the same thing that the Apostle before said, Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead, is Justified from sin; that is, is so freed from it, that he can no longer be accused as a servant of sin, as being now to be accounted a hater of sin, and not a friend of it. Where further note, that the first Justification is from sins that we are guilty of: But the second, from such as we are not guilty of. When a man hath committed sin, he is guilty, nor is he Justified from it, that is, he is not absolved from the guilt of it, but by pardon of sin, which is, by faith only. But take a Regenerate man, who before Regeneration was a Drunkard, a Fornicator, &c. but since his regeneration hath given over these sins; This man, inasmuch as he hath ceased, cannot be accused of these sins, as before. Therefore he is Justified from them, that is, absolved from what he committed not; And this justification is truly by works. For because he lived soberly and chastely, he ought to be altogether justified from Drunkenness and Fornication—To this second sort of Iustificacation appertaineth that which in Schools is wont to be called A Justification of the Cause; as in David and Jacob's case, &c.—In the same manner stands the case with all the faithful. For seeing the Devil is said to be the Accuser of the brethren, accusing them day and night before God, Rev. 12. 10. and not with God only, but also in our own Consciences, wh ich he hurteth with a suspicion of hypo • risie, and often troubleth it, as if we professed faith and godliness with a less sincere, yea dissembling mind, we have need therefore to be absolved from this accusation, and justified from this false witness, before God, which is another matter then to be Absolved and justified from the guilt of all our sins by which we are bound to the wrath and just judgment of God. This is the work of the first Justification, and is done only by Faith in Christ: The other is the work of the second Justification, and fetcheth help from our Works.
[YOU see then that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only, Jam. 2. 24.] It is easy to reconcile this place with what Paul seemeth contrarily to dispute, if we hold, what is most true, that the Apostle James speaks not here of one only Justification▪ which is done partly by Faith, and partly by Works: but of two distinct Justifications, whereof the first is by Faith, the other by Works. Seeing there is a double Accusation made against Believers: one by God, the Law and conscience, by whom they ate truly charged with the guilt of many crimes: the other by the Devil and wicked men, by whom they are falsely charged as guilty of hypocrisy, a mercenary mind, ungodliness, & wickedness; there is therefore required a double Justification: One by which men in themselves truly sinners, are Absolved freely through Christ, from the guilt of their sins; which Justification is by
Faith alone without Works: The other by which they are Absolved from those false charges of the Devil and wicked men, as being truly sanctified and Regenerate: which Justification is fetched from Works. James urgeth that both must be conjoined, and so that a man is not justified by Faith only, but by works also: that is, that it is not enough to be justified by Faith from the sins which one hath committed; but it is requisite also to be justified by Works from the sins which he is falsely accused of, and from which through Regeneration he is free.
14. DAniel Colonius, a very eminent Divine, hath some Theses extant, maintaining the same opinion as Lud. de Dieu, as his words show, though I cannot get the book. In Rom. 8. 4. after the forecited words, de Dieu addeth, [ Hanc sententiam probavit & Illustravit in Thesibus publice editis, quas analytice collegit ex 2. c. Epist. Iac. doctissimus ac Clar. Vir Avunculus meus, Praeceptor, & Collega, adeoque multis mihi nominibus suspiciendus D. Daniel Colonius, Collegii Gallo-Bellgici Regens.
15. MArt. Bucer. Colloq. Ratisb. p. 302. Iustificari fide, quae Iustificatio prima & vitae est, interpretatus est Jacobus per [vocari amicum Dei] hoc est, condonatis peccatis reconciliari cum Deo, & recipi ab eo in Gratiam & amicitiam, qui ante erat inimicus Dei & filius trae Iustificari • utem ex operibus docuit • dem esse quod percipere à Deo propter bona opera, quae ab eo percepit Abraham & Rahab, hoc est, comprobationem, laudem & remunerationem.
Pag. 308. he asserteth a twofold Righteousness, and p. 313. saith, Iustitiam hanc inchoatam sentimus esse quidem veram & vivam Iustitiam, Dei praeclarum & eximium donum, vitamque novam in Christo hac Iustitia constare, omnesqne sanctos hac ipsa quoque Iustitia justos esse & coram Deo & coram hominibus & propter eam sanctos quoque à Deo Iustificari Justification operum, id est, Comprobari eos à Deo, Laudari, & Remunerari. Attamen quamlibet haec Iustitia sit vera ac viva, & suo etiam modo Iustificans; tamen non esse ejusmodi, non sic veram, vivam & solidam, ut quisquam sanctorum Iustificari ea possit Justification vitae, multo minus ut sit ipsa vel Iustitia vel Iustificatio vitae.
Vide plura pag. 302. 308. 313. Et pag. 567. [Illud solum in Quaestione de mercede bonorum operum Controversum est, an sit in bonis operibus Renatorum, aliquod meritum condignum mercede quam eis Deus retribuit? Nam vitam aeternam reddi fidelibus been operantibus, etiam Coronae & mercedis loco, nos semper dedimus. ]
16. John. Piscator. (A man as far from suspicion of inclination to Arminianism or Popery, as most that ever lived in the reformed Churches) in Act. 10. 35. [Quaeri hic potest an Conciliemus nobis Amorem Dei nostra pietate, &c. Sed quomodo convenit cum verbis 1 John. 4. 10. in hoc est Charitas, &c. Resp. Quod ad Primam conciliationem Amoris Dei attinet, illa non efficitur per nostram pietatem, sed contra Pietas nostra fluit ex illa: Nam qu • s sibi Deus ex gratuito Amore Conciliavit per Christum, eos etiam sanctificat per spiritum suum: Et de hac Conciliatione loquuntur dicta allegata. Quod vero attinet ad Amoris Dei nobis semel Conciliati Conservationem & Incrementum, illa sane Efficitur ex nostra P • etate, cujus quidem Radix est vera in Christum fides.
IDem in Math. 25. 35. Et sane Bona opera respectu vitae aeternae habent rationem Causae efficientis; Non ut merita, sed ut Via, seu Ambulatio qua ad aeternam vitam pervenitur, ex Ordinatione Dei. Simili res haec declarari potest. Ut si cui don • tur thesaurus in Cacumine montis reconditus: sed hac Lege ut si potiri eo velit, montem conscendat illumque effodiat: Hic certe Conscensus montis & effossio Thesauri rationem habet Causae efficientis respectu possessionis & fruitionis thesauri; at non habet rationem Meriti, quippe cum Thesaurus illi fuerit Donatus.
TO be Justified by Faith, which is the first Justification, and of Life, James interpreteth by [to be called the friend of God] that is, sin being forgiven, to be reconciled with God, and be received by him into favor and friendship, when a man was before an enemy of God, and child of wrath. But to be Justified by Works, he teacheth is the same, as to receive of God for good Works, that which Abhaham and Rahab received of him, that is, Approbation, Praise and Reward.
Pag. 318. he saith, [We Judge that this inchoate righteousness is indeed a true and lively righteousness, an excellent and eminent gift of God, and that our new life in Christ consisteth of this righteousness, and that all the Saints also are righteous by this very righteousness, both before God and before men; and that for it also the Saints are Justified by the Justification of Works, that is, they are approved of God, Praised and Rewarded. Yet though this righteousness be true and lively, and justify in its manner, it is not such, or so true, lively or solid, as that any Saint can by it be justified with the Justification of life, much less that itself should be the Righteousness or Justification of life.
This only is controverted in the question of the Reward of good Works, Whether there be in the good Works of the Regenerate any merit condign of the Reward which God renders to them? For that life eternal is given to the faithful doing good Works, and that in place of a Crown and Reward, we always granted.]
HEre it may be questioned, Whether we do reconcile, or procure to ourselves the love of God by our Godliness, &c. How agrees it with that of 1 John. 4. 10. In this is love, not that we loved him, but, &c. Answ. As to the first procurement of God's love, it is not done by our Godliness, but contrarily our Godliness floweth from it: For those whom God by his free love hath reconciled to himself by Christ, them he also sanctifieth by his Spirit. And of this Conciliation do the alleged places speak. But as to the Conservation and Increase of the love of God, once reconciled (or set upon us) this verily is effected by our Godliness, whose root is a true Faith in Christ.
AND indeed good Works in respect of Eternal life, have the nature of an efficient Cause: Not as Merits, but as the way or walking by which we come to eternal life, by God's Ordination. The matter may be declared by this similitude; As if a Treasure which is hid in the top of a mountain be given to one, but on this Condition, that if he will enjoy it, he must climb the Hill, and dig it up: Here doubtless climbing the hill and digging up the treasure hath the nature of an efficient Cause, in respect of the possessing and enjoying of the treasure; but it hath not the nature of Merit; for the Treasure was freely given him.
PIscator saith more then ever I did, in ascribing an efficiency to Works, especially of the Continuance and Increase of God's Love and Favor, as on Act. 10. 35. he doth. Though as to the Possession of some part of salvation, it is true: Yet here the Lutherans running into the extreme since the Flaccian Seduction, blame the Calvinists, as one of the most Learned and Moderate of them doth blame Piscator himself; I mean Chr. Pelargus in Math. 5. p. 67. speaking of the Beatitudes, he saith that they are from the fruits and signs of God's children, Non autem a Causis veris & adjunctis, quemadmodum Piscator existimat, Causas Beatitudinis tradi procreantes; quarum aliae sint hominis beandi &c. Cum tamen a nobis nulla possit procreari Beatitudo.
If Piscator could not plea • e, nor escape censure, as being not rigid enough in this point: why should I expect to speed better, or think much, if every man speak according to the complexion of his brain or spleen?
17. BEza Annot. in Tit. 3. 7. Ut Iustificati, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Iustificationis Nomen large accipio, ita ut complectatur Quicquid à Christo Consequimur tum per Imputationem, tum per spiritus in nobis sanctificantis efficaciam; ut simus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est perfecti & integri in eo. Sic quoque accipitur Justificandi Verbum, Rom. 8. 30.
Idem in Rom. 5. 1. Showing how Faith justifieth, Nempe ex fide ut Instrumento, sive, neque quatenus est qualitas nobis per dei Gratiam insita, neque ex ipsius qualitatis opere quo credmus; sed propterea quod ex Dei sic nobiscum paciscentis tum Potentia tum voluntate, Christum cum omnibus quae ipsi insunt fides apprehendit.
TIt. 3. 7. That being Justified by his Grace, &c. I take the word [Justification] largely, so as it comprehendeth Whatsoever we obtain from Christ, both by Imputation, and by the efficacy of the sanctifying Spirit within us; that we may be perfect and entire in him. So also is the word [Justification] taken Rom. 8. 30. (Whom he called, them he Justified. )
Rom. 5. 1. by Faith as an Instrument; that is, not as a quality put into us by Grace, nor by the work of that quality by which we believe; but because through the Power and Will of God so Covenanting with us, Faith apprehendeth Christ with all that is in him.
HEnce I conclude 1. That he that shall say, that the word Justification in Scripture containeth sanctification sometimes, and so that our own holiness is the very matter of our Justification, and that we are justified so by it as the cause, material or formal, should say no more then Beza did allow of: which yet I never spake or wrote. Yea he thinketh that those two famous Texts, Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he Justified, &c. and Tit. 3. 7. are thus meant. So that according to Beza, Justification in these Texts hath two parts, Remission of sin, and Sanctification; our Relative and Real cleansing. If I had said so, how unquestionably would it have been carried that it was Popery? though the Controversy be but about the word, and not the matter. 2. Beza here, though he use the word Instrument, yet so explaineth it that he manifesteth himself to mean the same as I do; for he describeth it to be a right Condition, and its interest in Justification to depend directly on the will of the Promiser.
18. MArt. Chemnitz Exam. Conc. Trid. q. 4. de bon. operib. p. mihi 335. [Sed in Reconciliatis postea bona opera cum placeant fide propter Mediatorem, habent praemia spiritualia & corporalia in hac vita & post hanc vitam, id{que} ex gratuita promissione divina; & illae promissiones debent in renatis excitare studium bona operandi.—Et in hanc sententiam nostri etiam à Vocabulo meriti non abhorrent, sicut etiam Patribus us • tatum fuit. Praemia enim promittuntur ex gratia & miserecordia: Non tamen dantur otiosis vel male agentibus, sed laborantibus in Vinea domini. Atque ita in Apologia Confess. August. in Confess. Wittenburg. et in aliis nostrorum scriptis, usurpatur vocabulum Meriti.
BUT afterwards, in the Reconciled, good Works, seeing they please by Faith for the Mediator, have spiritual and corporal Rewards in this life, and after this life; and that by • ods free Promise. And those Promises should stir up in the regenerate a study of good Works.—And in this sense our Divines also abhor not the word Merit, as it was also used by the Fathers. For rewards are promised of Grace and mercy: yet are they not given to the idle, or evil doers, but to them that labor in God's Vine-yard. And so in the Apology for the Augustan Confession, in the Wittenburg Confession, and in other writings of our Divines, the word Merit is used.
Idem ib. de Iustifi. p. 234. It being objected▪ That the Papists and we agree in sense, both Confessing both Remission of sin and sanctification; but we differ only about the word [Justification] which they take in one sense, and we in another, and the Church should not be rent for a word.
REsp. Nequaquam tales sumus turbatores qui verae & solidae & salutari concordiae ita simus iniqui, & adeo cupidi contentionum ut etiam si de rebus ipsis constituta esset vera, pia, & salutaris consensio, quaesituri tamen essemus materiam rixarum ex verborum pugnis. Patribus enim, licet plerumque verbum • ustificare accip • ant pro renovatione qua efficiuntur in nobis per spiritum opera Justitiae, non movemus litem, ubi juxta Scripturam recte & commode tradant doctrinam quomodo & quare persona Deo reconcilietur, accipiat Remissionem peccatorum & adoptionem, & Accepetur ad Vitam aeternam. Saepe etiam à nostris monstratum est discrimen illud significationum, quomodo juxta analogiam fid • i & perpetuam Scripturae sententiam recte pie & dextre intelligi & admitti possit illa etiam significatio, si cum patribus accipiatur juxta morem Latinae Compositionis. Sed nihilo placatiores facti sunt Pontificii.
WEE are no such turbulent persons, and such enemies to true, solid▪ wholesome concord, and so desirous of contentions, as to seek matter of quarrels from a strife of words, if a true, pious and safe consent were settled about the things themselves. For though the Fathers do for the most part take the word [Iustifie] for Renovation, whereby the works of righteousness are effected in us by the Spirit, yet do we not make it a quarrel with them, as long as according to Scripture they rightly and fitly deliver the Doctrine, how and wherefore a person is reconciled to God, receiveth Remission of sins, and Adoption, and is Accepted to eternal life. And there hath been oft declared by our Divines this difference of the significations (of the word Justification) and how according to the Analogy of Faith, and the perpetual sense of Scripture, we may rightly, piously, and dextrously understand and admit that signification also▪ if with the Fathers it be taken after the manner of the Latin composition. But the Papists are never the more quieted, (or appeased.)
19. ZAnchius in very many places saith more for works then ever I did. On 1 John. 1. Loco de Remiss. Qu. 6. On what Conditions sin is forgiven; he shows that it is not forgiven but on these three conditions. 1. True constant repentance. 2. Confession. 3. Forgving others; and excellently answereth their Objection, who say, Remission is not free if it have all these Conditions. I do not transcribe the words, because they are long, and because I would have the Reader peruse them at large in the Author.
Also he often saith that Works shall justify our Faith in judgment, (as most of our Divines do.) And then they must needs justify the person, when the Accusation is, that he is an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite: Or when the case is, Whether he have that true Faith which will prove his Right in Christ. The Justification of the Cause is the Justification of the person.
TOm. 8. pag. 787. loc. de Justif. fidei [Opera necessaria sunt. 1. Ad Justificationem fidei coram Deo, &c. 2. Necessaria sunt ad Consecutionem vitae aeternae, non tanquam Causae meritoriae, sed tanquam necessariae viae per quas Ordinary Deus electos suos ad possidendam vitam, &c. Mat. 25. Venite Benedicti, &c. q. d. Opera pietatis quae fecistis Effecerunt, non quidem ut vobis parata sit & donata vita aeterna, &c. sed Effecerunt & Causa fuerunt ut nunc ingrediamini ad possidendum Regnum ante vobis paratum. 3. Necessaria sunt ad Iustificationem Inhaerentem tanquam Causae. Homo enim Iustitia inhaerente Iustificatur ex operibus, id est, sanctificatur, r • novatur, Iustus fit; juxta quem sensum loquuntur Scholastici & ante eos Patres, & ante hos Johannes Apostolus, Apoc. 22. Qui Iustus est, Justificetur adhuc. 4. Utilia sunt ad Conservandam & augendam fidem; Item ad multa bona tum spiritualia tum Corporalia, tum in hac vitae tum in alia à Deo Promerenda & obtinenda, ut postea dicetur.
Id. ib. pap. 79 • . Opera considerantur 1. Ex sua dignitate & merito, &c. 2. Ex Acceptatione Divine bonitatis, sive prout fiunt ab homine Christiano grato Deo & Remissione peccatorum donato, dilectoque in Christo: Et hoc modo Deus Acceptat illa ut Justa, & Imputat ea homini ad justitiam, &c.
VOl. 3. pag. 207. Epist. ad Heidelbergens. [Duplicem etiam Iustitiam nobis sacrae tradunt literae, qua electi gratis à Deo donati Iustificati & Justi esse dicuntur. Unam perfectissimam & numeris omnibus absolutam: alteram imperfectam & in nobis inchoatam, in altero tantùm seculo perficiendam. Unam quae sicut ab operibus nostris non pendet, sic neque per opera perfici potest; alteram, quae, licet ex gratia non autem propter opera donetur, per opera tamen incrementum accipit & perficitur. Unam qua donati ita Coram Deo Justificamur, ut in ipsius Dei conspectu atque Judicio, pro omnino inculpatis atque Iustissimis reputemur. Alteram quae non solum nos coram hominibus Justos reddit, verum etiam gratos nos Deo magis ac magis efficit, & promissiones habet vitae present is & futurae. Unam denique extra nos in solo Christo tanquam in capite nostro realiter positum, nobis vero imputatam, eoque nostram per imputationem effectam. Alteram vero in nobis reapse existentem atque inhaerentem.
Et Tom. ult. Thes. de merit. oper. pag. 702. Et si talia sint sanctorum opera, Deus tamen illa si ex fide fiant, & gratissima habet, & multis magnisque praemiis, atque adeo vita aeterna, idque nomine etiam mercedis & Coronae remunerat.
Et Vol. 3. pag. 219. Epist. l. 1. Accidit quod in Scriptures duo tribunalia dantur Deo, viz. Judicii & miserecordiae: in illo ex Lege; in hoc ex Evangelio homines Judicantur.
Vol. 3. Tom. 8. p. 578. Sunt etiam duo actionum fidei genera; Unum in intellectu; alterum in Voluntate. Intellectus lumine fidei donatus res per verbum propositas intelligit, assentit, Credit. Voluntats efficacitate fidei affecta, ease ut Bonas Amat, vult, Amplectitur.] vid. & vol. 1. To. 3. p. 636. & 368.
WOrks are necessary, 1. To justify Faith before God, &c. 2. They are necessary to the obtaining eternal Life; not as meritorious causes, but as necessary ways by which God ordinarily brings his Elect to possess life, &c. Mat. 25, Come ye blessed, &c. The Works of piety, which you have done, did not indeed effect that life eternal was prepared for you, and given, &c. But they did effect and were Causes that you now may enter to possess the Kingdom before prepared for you. 3. They are necessary to Inherent Justification as Causes. For a man is Justified by Works with Inherent Righteousness: that is, he is sanctified, renewed, made Righteous: After which sense the Schoolmen speak, and before them the Fathers, and before them the Apostle John, Rev. 22. He that is righteous, let him be justified yet. 4. They are profitable to conserve and increase Faith: also to Promerit of God and obtain many good things both spiritual and corporal, both in this life and in another, as shall be afterwards shown.
WOrks are considered, 1. In their own dignity and merit: 2. In the Acceptation of God's goodness, or as they are done by a Christian, pleasing to God, pardoned and beloved in Christ. And in this wise God Accepteth them as Righteous, and Imputeth them to man for righteousness, &c.
THE Scriptures deliver a twofold righteousness, by which the Elect being freely endowed, are said to be righteous and justified: One most perfect and in all points absolute: the other imperfect and begun in us, and to be perfected in another world: One, which as it dependeth not on our Works, so can it not be perfected by our Works: The other, which though it be given of Grace and not for Works, yet is it increased and perfected by Works: One, with which we being endowed, are so justified before God, that in the sight and judgment of God himself we are reputed for altogether blameless & most just: Another, which doth not only make us righteous before men, but also maketh us more and more acceptable to God, and hath the Promise of the life that now is, and that which is to come. To conclude, one without us, really placed in Christ himself only our head, and imputed to us, and so made ours by Imputation: The other really existing and inherent in ourselves.]
[Though the Works of the Saints are such, yet if they be done in Faith, God doth both take them as most acceptable, and rewardeth them with many and great Rewards; and so with Life Eternal, and that by the name of Wages, and of a Crown.]
[In Scriptures two Tribunals are ascribed to God: to wit, of judgment, and of mercy. In that, men are judged out of the Law; In this, out of (or by) the Gospel.]
[Also there are two kinds of acts of Faith: One in the understanding, the other in the will. The understanding endowed with the light of Faith, understandeth things propounded by the word, Assenteth, Believeth. The will being affected with the efficacity of Belief, Loveth, Willeth, and embraceth them as good.]
SO that according to Zanchi, Love and Faith is one thing, when Christ is the object; therefore that love is not excluded from Justification. And often he maketh love to God as our end and chief good to go before Faith in Christ as the way. And he oft saith we are Justified by Inherent Righteousness, and it is imputed to us for Righteousness and gives it the name of a Cause, and saith it doth effect it, that we should enter into heaven: Much more then I have said.
20. COnradus Bergius in Praexi Cathol. Divin. Canon. Dissert 7. pag. 986. 987. [Et in hac fructuum comparatione sub nomine proprie causae finalis pertinentis ad Non Amittendum, sed Retinendum gratuito data, ordo & respectus operum ad salutem simplicissime & Commod • ssime ad Scripturae filum expli. cari potest. ]
Et antea [Ut caeterae actiones significatae per fidem quasi materialiter & Synecdochice, per se & direct non ordinantur ad amicitiam Dei & salutem proprie efficiendam: sed vel ad fidem (cui quoquo modo prosunt) vel ad amicitiam Dei vel salutem saltem Non-Amittendam; Ita ne{que} Justificabunt & salvabunt proprie & direct. Proderunt, &c. quatenus per illa excludimus & cavemus peccata & ingratitudinem, quae omnino vera causa Amittendae Justitiae & salutis futura essent: qualem causam Removentem prohibens, & ad causas per accidens, refer solent. ]
Et pag. 973. [1. Fides est obedientia, quatenus ejus actus proprius respondet praecepto Evangelii Crede in Dominum Iesum: & sic fides est Obedientia erga Evangelium, inquit Apolog. August. Confes. pag. 125. Quantum ab Evangelio Lex distat, tantum haec obedientia ab illa disterminatur, (inquit Mentzerus in Exeges. art. 4. n. 15.) 2. Etiam fides est obedientia, quatenus per Snecdochen Metonymicam significat totum cultum à fidelibus praestitum; radicem una cum fructibus; Heb. 13. 7. Rom. 1. 8, 1 Thes. 1. 8. Nec dubium est cum dicitur hoc est mandatum ut credamus & diligamus, 1 Joh. 3. 23. Sicut in praecepto diligendi & habitus charitatis & fructus atque opera, ad quae habitus ordinatur, mandata sunt; ita etiam in praecepto credendi & habitum fidei & fructus ejus nobis mandatos esse. Unde cum ipsa etiam Charitas inter fructus sit fidei, fit ut tota doctrina Christiana aliquando Verbum vel praedicatio fidei, tota Religio Christiana, totae oeconomia Novi Testamenti Fides appelletur, Gal. 1. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 6. Gal 5. 6, & 3. 23.
Sic Lutherus saepe per fidē praecipue quidē & formaliter intelligens apprehensionem promissionis in Christo, & abnegationem meriti proprii, includit simul totā obedientiam & inclinationem voluntatis▪ & charitatem adeo Evangelio consentaneam: Et per Opera contra intelligit, actiones factas cum opinione meriti & cum expectatione Iustificationis & vitae eternae tanquam merced • s debitae, (Here he citeth many places of Luther to this End.)
Ex his proclivis etiam est intelligentia Quaest. de sola fide Iustificante: cum dicitur sine operibus Legis, excluduntur, 1. Opera facta in Veritaete Obedientiae Legalis, ac Meriti proinde per innocentiam, & cui debetur merces citra Remissionem peccati, & Imputationem secundum Gratiam, &c. 2. Et opera facta cum opinione verae obedientiae Legalis, ac Meriti per innocentiam. 3. Et opera facta cum opinione Meriti sine Obedientia aut Innocentia Legali, aut ex quaelicun{que} imperfecta, aut particulari Obedientia cui aliqualiter detur Merces citra Imputationem secundum Gratiam, ex promissione sub conditione operis, praeter Acceptationem & Retentionem] Uide plura pag. 982, 983, 984, 985. & alibipassim.
Et pag. 963, 964. Errant igitur Pontificii graviter quando confundunt opera communiter accepta cum Meritis, ac simulat{que} opus pium praec • pi audiunt, Meritum illico & opus legaliter appellatum intelligent. Ita & cum Mercedem promitti audiunt, rursus Juridice illam & Legaliter, velut in contractu aliquo Locationis & Condictionis intelgendam existimant; cum tamen Merces usitate appelletur quicquid consequimur praecedente labor & molestiis aliquibus quarum formido nos excludere poterat bono proposito, quae{que} boni subsequentis dulcedine compensantur. Taliae autem sunt non tantum, 1. Redditio boni cui opus praecedens condigna bonitate respondeat, (viz. Meritum ex condigno,) sed & 2. Executio Donationis eleemosynae mere gratuitae quam humili & fideli perseverantia expectans pauper, contemptu & ingratitudine non fecerit irritam. Qualis acceptatio non est Causa efficiens, & promerens ipsam donationem jam factam; sed est conditio non excidendi donatione, seu exclusio causae promerentis & efficientis omnino ut eam amittamus. Nec efficit quicquam per se, sua virtute & dignitate, sed ex praeveniente liberalitate & miserecordiae donantis, aut intercedentis etiam apud donatorem. 3. Etiam executio promissionis quae facta est sub conditione, non tantum acceptandi grate & non contemnendi donum (hanc enim conditionem nulla donatio est tam gratuita & pura quin includat) sed certi etiam operis praeter acceptationem & gratitudinem alià, necessariam, quod proinde est quodammodo meritorium, quamvis inter opus & premium promissum nulla forte sit ae qualitas & commutatio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : ut si pater filio accipienti medicamentum amarum gemmam promittat: aut princeps subdito in exercitio & certamine ipsi utili brab • um, &c. hic autem ne{que} donatio est mere gratuita & pura, quia res non incipit deberi simulat{que} acceptatur promissio & donatio; sed cum impleta fuerit conditio: Nec est meritum ex condigno proprie, cum operans sibi ipsi prosit potius, quàm det alteri pro quo pretium aequale accipere debeat: Unde rursus nihil efficit proprie suâ virtute & dignitate, sed ex liberalitate, magnificentiâ & miserecordiâ donantis, vel etiam intercedentis apud donantem: Sed est meritum quoddam improprie dictum, quod ex pacto vocant. Tale quid respectu bonorum operum in filiis quibus praemia Deus promisit, admittit Apolog. Conf. August. in resp. ad Arg. Quanquam meriti vocem propter ambiguitatem, & abusum max • mum, alii non immerito prorsus rej • ciunt: Aliud est meritum quod vocant de congruo: Sed quod vel prorsus non significare videtur meritum, vel contradictionem involvere, &c.
Read further, and specially his Tables, pag. 967. 968. 969. and you will see that he saith as much as ever I did, and expoundeth the Papists Doctrine of Merits far more favorably and complyingly.
21. LEarned Ludovicus Crocius in Syntagm. lib. 4. cap. 7. pag. 1223. [2. Fides etiam sola Justificat, quatenus notat obedientiam quandam expectantem promissionem ut donum gratuitum, quomodo formaliter quidem consistit in applicatione promissionis; quam tamen & praecedunt dispositiones aliquae ad hunc ipsum fidei actum (de quibus vide Paraeum lib. 10. de Justif. contra Bellar. cap. 3.) & sequuntur fructus; Unde plures virtutes vel actus cum antecedentes tum consequentes connotat, & opponitur illi obedientiae quae non expectat prom • ssionem tanquam donum omnino gratuitum, sed ut mercedem propositam sub conditione operis ali • u • us, praeter acceptationem & gratitudinem debitam, quae suâ naturâ in omni donatione quamvis gratuitâ requiri solet. Et hujusmodi obedientia peculiariter opus ab Apostolo & Latinis proprie meritum dicitur. Et qui hac conditione obediunt operantes vocantur. Rom. 4. 4 & 11. 6. at{que} si ita haec propositio exponatur, ea quidem opera quae cum side consistere nequeunt, id est, quae fiunt cum fiduciâ & opinione meriti, prorsus excluduntur, ita ut non solum negentur Justificare, sed & adesse tam in Justificato quam in Justificando. ]
Et cap. 18. pag. 1130. & 1131. [ Talia sunt (opera mercedem obtinentia) non tantum (ex condigno) Verum etiam. 1. Executio donationis sive eleemosynae prorsus gratuitae, quam humili & fideli perseverantia expectans pauper, contemptu & ingratitudine haud irritam fecerit.
2. Executio promissionis quae non tantum facta est sub conditione acceptandi & non contemnendi doni, (quam conditionem nulla est donatio tam gratuita quin includat) sed certi etiam praeterea operis; quod propterea est quodam 〈…〉 meritorium; etiamsi inter hoc opus & premium promissum nulla forsan sit aequalitas, nullum{que} 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ut e. g. si pater silio accipienti pharmacum amarum, gemmam polliceatur. Id vero ne{que} donatio est mere gratuita, quia res non incipit deberi simulat{que} acceptatur promissio, sed cum impleta fuerit conditio: ne{que} meritum ex condigno proprie, cum operans sibi ipsi potius prosit, quàm det alteri, pro quo pretium aequale recipere debeat: Sed est meritum quoddam improprie dictum, quod ex pacto vocant. Tale quid, respectu bonorum operum in filiis quibus praemia Deus promisit, admittimus. ]
Et pag. 1133. Si de • i{que} in adultis omnibus ad beatitud • nem (opera) habent rationem viae, medii, conditionis, caus • sine quâ non, sive antecedentis necessarii, quomodo ad salutem necessaria non erunt? ]
Lege reliqua, ubi ex Vossio plura transcripsit.
22. Mr. Bradshaw, so thoroughly studied in the Doctrine of Justification, gives at least as much to obedience as ever I did. In the Latin Edition of his Treat. of Justif. sap. 24. Sect. 21. [Nova haec nostra obed • entia quâ quantum in nobis est legi Divinae deinceps conforms nos gerimus, cum à Deo ipso requiratur, & à nobis ipsis praestetur, pro gradu suo & mensura etiam Justitia nostra dicitur, qua & formaliter, inhaerenter, habitualiter sive ex operibus Justi (pro ipsius m • dulo) coram Deo etiam vere dicamur, utpote cujus ration pro justis ex parte à Deo ipso censeamur. Cujus{que} intuitu etiam foro Divino, aliquo modo, Justificari (si id opus esset) possumus. Sect. 23. Et si Justitiae illius ex qua Justificamur, sive cujus merito peccata nobis dimittuntur, obedientia illa pars nulla sit: Est tamen non minus quam ipsa (ex qua oritur) fides ad salutem aeternam nobis necessaria; Utpote sine qua Justitiam Christ • i imputatam prodesse nobis posse nulla spes existat. Sect. 25. Cujuslibet ita{que} vere Christiani qui-cum actu Deus in gratiam rediit, in statu gratiae jam constituti, duplex est Justitia; non libero ipsius arbitrio seu naturae viribus acquisita, sed à Deo eidem per Christum donata, & ad ejusdem salutem utra{que} necessaria: Imputata una; inhaerens altera: Imputata, quae à Christo est pro eodem praestita ad satisfaciendum pro peccatis universis, per totam vitam ab eodem commissis: Inhaerens qua divina per Christum gratia ad intus, à peccatis deinceps committendis magis magis{que} cessare incipit, legem{que} divinam ad amussim observare studiosissime conatur. Utpote à qua custodienda non fuerit per Justitiam illam Christi imputatam liberatus, sed ad eam ipsam potius amplius arctius{que} adstrictus. Sect. 26. per Justitiam Christi nobis imputatam non possumus d • ci absolute sive omni modo Justi, acsi propter eam eo loci nos Deus haberet, ac • omnia ex lege sua à nobis requisita praestitissemus: tum enim post admissam & acceptam illam Christi Justitiam, nullam à nobis Deus obedientiam legi suae ex parte nostra praestandam exigere posset. Sed per Justitiam Christi nobis imputatam eatenus nos justos factos aestimat Deus, quatenus Legis Divinae transgressores exstiterimus. Ut in tantum ex illa Christi Iustitia, justi facti dicamur, in quantum ex inobedientia nostra injusti constituti simus. Ne{que} enim pro eis omnibus satisf • cit Christus, qu • ex lege facere ten • bamur (huc enim qui legem dissolveret▪ in mundum venisset) sed pro eis tantum quae vel contra legem feceramus, vel cum facere deberemus, non feceramus. ]
Cap 25 Cui peccati perticularis alicujus reatus intentatur, is peccatum illud vel commisit, vel non commisit; si commiserit, nulla alia ration coram Deo vere justificari potest, nisi superiorem Christi satisfactionem in genere, pro se praestitam allegando. Si non commiserit▪ tum innocentia sive Justitia ipsius propria in Justificationem ipsius allegari p • terit; quod est ex propriis operibus sive ex formali & inhaerenti sibi Justitia eatenu • Justificari. So when Satan accuseth us of not fulfilling the New-Covenant conditions, we must be Justified at judgment by our own personal faith and obedience, which is the fulfilling of them, that is by our Evangelical righteousness or works as James speaketh.
23. VOssius Thes. de Bon. oper. Merit. pag. 79. Th. 10. Quaeritur an merces operibus promittatur ut fidei signis? Nos & nimium dicere putamus qui eam operibus promitti censent ut causae meritoriae: Nec satis dicere Judicamus qui • antummodo ut signis fidei promissionem factam arbitrantur. Siquidem multa sunt Scripturae loca quibus planum fiat opera nostra in salutis negotio spectari ut causam sine qua non, sive ut conditionem praecedaneam, quae premium vitae aeternae individuo secum nex •• trahat. Mat. 25. 34. Apoc. 7. 14 &c.
Et pag 76. Colligimus non loqui s • cras literas de mercede, qualis ob dignitatem mercedi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jure mercenario debetur: sed ea quae non segn • bus verùm laborantibus ex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac gratuitae promissionis jure confertur: Unde & haereditas alibi nominatur. Nec haeneditatis appellatio obstare censenda est quo minus mercedis nomen mereatur. Siquidem & filio Adoptivo qui morem Adoptanti sedulo gesserit, & multa illius causa sit perpessus, sic h • reditas jure venit filiali, ut tamen ea ration operum quae is praestiti, & ration afflictionum quas is subiit, merces possit appellari. ]
Et post. [ Etiam qui se liberali promissione obligat, Debitor hoc sensu dici possit.
24. CAmero pag. 365. (operum fol. Genev. impres. ) [Obj. Si multae Conditiones requiruntur in Iustificandis, non Justificamur ex mera Gratia. Resp. Distinguo Conditiones: Si multae Conditiones requirantur in Iustificandis quae habeant proportionem cum Iustitia Dei, Concedo. Sed si Conditiones quae requiruntur in Iustificandis, nullam habeant proportionem cum Iustitia Dei, nego inde effici Iustificationem non esse ex mera Gratia. Nam non excluduntur Conditiones omnes, sed eae quae possent habere rationem Meriti. ]
Et antea [Iudicium Dei duplex est: Unum quod peragitur secundum Legem; alterum quod peragitu • secundum Evangelium Christi. Quemadmodum est Thronus duplex, viz. Iuris districti, & Gratiae. Si in Iudicio quod est secundum Legem, commemorarentur opera nostra & examinarentur, actum de nobis esset, &c. Si commemorantur in throno Gratiae opera, non est actum de nobis, quia est thronus Gratiae. Qui Iustificantur in throno Gratiae, non Iustificantur ex operibus; Commemorantur tamen eorum bona opera, non ut Causae, sed ut Media & signa verae Iustificationis, viz. fidei.
[ANd in this comparison of fruits, under the name of a final cause properly belonging to the Not-losing, but retaining what is freely given us, the Order and Respect of Works to Salvation, may most simply and most fitly be explained according to the line of the Scriptures.]
[As the rest of the actions signified by faith as it were materially and Synedochically, are not ordinated of themselves, and directly, properly to effect the friendship of God, and Salvation: but to the not-losing of faith, to which they are many ways profitable: Or at least to the Not-losing the friendship of God or Salvation: So neither will they Justify and save properly and directly. They avail us as by them we exclude and beware sins and ingratitude, which would be the true cause altogether of our losing righteousness and Salvation: Such a cause we call a remover of impediments, and are wont to refer it to a cause by accident.]
[1. Faith is obedience, as its proper act doth answer the precept of the Gospel, Believe in the Lord Jesus: And so faith is obedience to the Gospel, saith the Apology of the August. Confession, pag. 125. As far as the Law differeth from the Gospel, so far doth this obedience differ from that, saith Mainz, &c.]
2. Also faith is obedience as by a Metonymical Synecdoche it signifieth the whole worship performed by believers; the root with the fruits: Heb. 13. 7. Rom. 1. 8. 1 Thes. 1. 8. [Nor is there any doubt when it is said, this is the Commandment that we believe and love, 1 John. 3. 23. As in the precept of Loving▪ both the Habit of Charity and the fruits and works to which the Habit is ordinated, are commanded; so also in the precept of believing, both the habit of faith and the fruits thereof are commanded to us] Whence it is that Charity itself being among the fruits of faith, the whole Christian doctrine is called the Word or preaching of faith; the whole economy of the New Testament, is called Faith, Gal. 1. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 6. Gal. 6. 5 & 3. 23.
So Luther often understanding by Faith, chiefly indeed and formally the Apprehension of the promise in Christ, and the denial of our own merit, includeth withal our whole Obedience and Inclination of the will, and Charity so agreeable to the Gospel: And by Works contrarily he understandeth, Actions done with an Opinion of merit, and with an expectation of Justification and life eternal as wages of Debt.
By this it is easy to understand the Question of Faith alone justifying: When it is said without the works of the Law, there are excluded, 1. Works done in the Truth of Legal obedience, and so of merit by Innocency, and as to whom the Reward is due without Remission of sin and imputation according to Grace, &c. 2. And works done with an Opinion of true Legal obedience and merit by Innocency. 3. And works done with an Opinion of merit without Legal obedience or Innocency; or by any imperfect or particular obedience, whereto the Reward is any way given without imputation according to Grace, by a promise on Condition of works. Except (or beside) Accepting and Retaining.
The Papists therefore do grievously err, in that they confound Works commonly taken with Merits: and as soon as they hear a pious work commanded, they presently understand it of Merit, and of Work Legally so called. So when they hear of Reward promised, they again understand it juridically and legally, as in some Contract of Location and Condition; when indeed anything is usually called a Reward, which we obtain by precedent labor, and by any troubles, the fear of which might have excluded us from the proposed Good, and which are recompensed with the sweetness of the benefit following. And such are, not only 1. The rendering of that good whereto the precedent work doth answer by condign goodness (to wit, Merit of Condignity) but also 2. The performing of a Gift of freest Alms, which the poor that expecteth it in humble and faithful perseverance, shall not make void by contempt and ingratitude. Such Acceptance is not the Cause efficient and meriting the donation already past; but it is a Condition of not losing the Gift, or an exclusion of the Cause meriting and certainly effecting our loss of it. Nor doth it effect anything of itself, by its own Virtue and Dignity, but by the preventing liberality and mercy of the giver, or of one interceding with the giver. 3. And the execution of a promise which is made on Condition, not only of Accepting thankfully and not contemning the Gift, (for no Gift is so free and pure but it includeth this Condition,) but also of a Certain work besides Acceptance and Thankfulness, otherwise necessary, which therefore is in some sort meritorious, though perhaps between the work and the promised Reward there is no equality and commutation, as one being given for the other. As if a Father promise a Jewel to his child for taking a bitter medicine, or a Prince a Reward to a Subject in an exercise and fight that is profitable to himself, &c. here the Gift is not merely gratuitous and pure, because the thing begins not to be Due as soon as the promise and donation is accepted, but when the condition is fulfilled: nor is it properly merit of Condignity, seeing the worker doth rather profit himself, then give that to another for which he should receive an equal price; so that here also it effecteth nothing properly by its own virtue and dignity, but by the Liberality, Magnificence, and Mercy of the Giver, or of one interceding with the Donor; But it is a certain Merit, improperly so called, which they call ex pacto, of Contract. The Apology of the Augustine Confession admitteth such a thing in respect of good works in God's children, to whō God hath promised rewards. Though others do not undeservedly wholly reject the word Merit, because of its ambiguity, and great abuse. There is another Merit which they call of congruity: But it either seemeth not to signify any Merit at all, or to involve a Contradiction.] See the rest.
2. ALso faith alone Justifieth, as it noteth a certain obedience expecting the promise as a free gift, as formally it consisteth in the application of the promise, which yet some dispositions to this very act of faith do precede, (of which see Pareus. lib. 10 de just. cont. Bellarm. ) and fruits do follow: So that it connoteth many virtues or acts both Antecedent and Consequent, and is opposed to that obedience which expecteth not the promise as a gift wholly free, but as wages propounded on the condition of some work, besides accepting, and due thankfulness, which of its own nature is wont to be required in every gift how free soever. And such obedience as this is peculiarly called Works by the Apostle, and Merit properly by the Latins. And they that obey on this condition, are called workers, Rom 4. 4. and 11. 6. And if this proposition be thus expounded, those works which cannot consist with faith, that is, which are done with a Confidence and Opinion of Merit, are wholly excluded, so that they are not only denied to Justify, but • o be present either in the Justified, or him that is to be Justified.]
[Such are (works obtaining the reward) not only by merit of condignity, but also, 1. The execution of a Donation or an alms merely free, which the poor expecting in humble and faithful perseverance, doth not make void by contempt and ingratitude.
2. The execution of a promise which is not only made on condition of accepting and not contemning the gift (which condition there is no gift so free but it doth include,) but also of a certain work besides, which therefore is after a sort Meritorious; though between this work and the prom • sed reward, then be perhaps no equality, and nothing in Commutation: as if a father promise a child a Jewell to take a bitter Medicine: And this is neither a Donation merely free, because the thing begins not to be due as soon as the promise is accepted, but when the condition is performed: Nor properly is it Merit of condignity, seeing the worker rather profits himself then gives that to another for which he should receive an equal price: But is a certain Merit improperly so called, which they call of Contract, (or promise.) Such a thing we admit in respect of good works in sons, to whom God hath promised the reward.]
[Lastly, if in all the adult, works have the nature (or respect) of a Way, a Means, a Condition, a causa sine qua non, a necessary Antecedent to blessedness, how can they choose but be necessary to Salvation?]
(Much of this was before Transcribed by C. Bergius. )
THis our New obedience, whereby we do as much as in us lieth, carry ourselves for the future conform to God's Law, seeing it is required by God himself, and is performed by us ourselves, is also called our righteousness according to its degree and measure, by which we are even truly said before God, to be formally, Inherently, Habitually, or by Works, Righteous, (according to its measure:) as in regard whereof we are Judged righteous in part, by God himself. And in consideration of which, we may be in a sort Justified (were it necessary) even at the bar of God.] §. 23. [Though that obedience be no part of that righteousness whereby we are Justified, or by the Merit whereof our sins are forgiven us; yet is it no less necessary for us to eternal Salvation, then faith itself, (from which it ariseth:) For without it there is no hope that the imputed righteousness of Christ can profit us. Sect. 25. [Every true Christian therefore to whom God is reconciled, and is constituted in a state of Grace hath a twofold righteousness, not acquired by his free-will or strength of nature, but given him from God by Christ, and both of them necessary to his Salvation. One imputed, the other inherent: The imputed, which was by Christ performed for him, to satisfy for all the sins which he hath committed through his whole life: Inherent, by which (by the internal Grace of God through Christ) he beginneth to cease from committing sin hereafter, more and more, and endeavoreth most diligently to observe the Law of God exactly; As not being delivered from the keeping of it, by that imputed righteousness of Christ, but tied to it rather more and more straightly. Sect 26. By Christ's righteousness im • uted to us, we cannot be called absolutely and every way righteous, as if for it God did esteem of us as if we had performed all things required of us by his Law: For then after the admitting and accepting that righteousness of Christ, God could not exact any obedience of us, to be performed to his Law on our part. But by Christ's righteousness imputed to us, God doth so far esteem us made righteous, as we were transgressors of God's Law. That we may be said to be so far made righteous by that righteousness of Christ, as we are made unrighteous by our own disobedience. For Christ did not satisfy for all that we were bound by the Law to do (for then he should have come into the world to destroy the Law;) but only for so much (or those things) which either we had done against the Law, or had not done, when we ought to have done them.]
Cap. 25. [He that is accused of the guilt of any particular sin, either hath committed that sin, or hath not committed it. If he have committed it, he can by no other way be truly Justified before God▪ but by alleging the foresaid satisfaction of Christ in general, to be performed for him; If he have not committed it▪ then his innocence or his own proper righteousness may be alleged by him to his Justification. Which is to be justified so far by his own works, or by a Righteousness Formal and Inherent in himself.]
(This is as much as ever I affirmed, of Justification in Judgment by our own Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedience; That he that is falsely accused to be without them, (and consequently according to the tenor of the promise, to be without part in Christ) may be Justified by them (or by denying the Accusation) so far.
[ITs questioned whether the reward be promised to works as to signs of faith? We Judge that they say too much that Judge it promised to works as to a Meritorious cause▪ And we Judge that they say not enough who suppose the promise made to them only as signs of faith For there are many places of Scripture in which it is plain that our works are looked upon in the business of Salvation as a causa sine qua non, or as a precedaneous condition, which inseparably bringeth with it the reward of eternal life▪]
[We gather that the Scriptures speak not of a reward which is due by a mercenary right as for a worthiness proportionable to the reward: but of that which by right of Adoption and free promise is given, not to the slothful, but to the laboring. Whence it is elsewhere called an inheritance. Nor must we think that the name of an inheritance doth hinder it from deserving the name of Wages (or Reward.) For to an Adopted Son who diligently obeyeth him that Adopted him, and hath suffered much for his sake, the inheritance doth so come by right of sonship, as yet it may be called a reward (or wages) in respect to the works which he performed, and by reason of the afflictions which he underwent.]
[Even he that obligeth himself by a free promise, may in this sense be called a Debtor.]
OBj. If many Conditions are required in them that are to be Justified, we are not justified of mere Grace. Answ. I distinguish of Conditions: If many Conditions are required in them to be Justified, which bear proportion with the Justice of God, I grant it. But if the Conditions required in them that are to be Justified, have no proportion with the Justice of God, I deny that it thence follows that Justification is not of mere Grace. For all Conditions are not excluded; but those which might have the reason of Merit.
God's judgment is twofold One which is done according to the Law: the other which is done according to the Gospel of Christ. As there is a double Throne, viz Of strict Justice, and of Grace; If in the judgment which is according to the Law, our works be mentioned, we are undone, &c. If our Works are mentioned at the throne of Grace, we are not undone, because it is a Throne of Grace. They that are justified at the Throne of Grace, are not justified by Works; yet are their good Works mentioned, not as Causes, but as means and signs of true Justification, viz. of Faith.
IDem Prelect. pag. 47. He shows that Works have a Relation to the Reward, and that is twofold. 1. As it is Promised. 2. As God delighteth in them. Then he shows how God rewardeth Works; Not in strict Justice; but as a Father Rewardeth an obedient child, more then a disobedient; or a Master, a good servant, though he owe it not to him. And he addeth that in this Reward, God looketh at two things. 1. At the Demonstration of Rewarding Justice. 2. At the Praise of his own, both which he proveth; and saith it is as compared with the wicked that they are praised, &c.
IDem, pag. 413. Qu. in Haebr. [Annon tam videatur violari à multis Conditio faederis Evangelici quam Legalis?] Resp. Tam violatur à multis, sed non violatur à tam multis. Nam Conditio faederis legalis ab omnibus violata est: immo vero praestitu impossibilis est, etiam Resipiscentibus. At Conditio faederis Evangelici diversa est, &c. Opus ergo fuit novo faedere, nisi generi humano percundum sit, &c. Certe Nemo servatur nisi faedere observato. Ergo foedus quo servantur homines, diversum est ab eo quo à nemine observato nemo servatur.
Q. [Doth it not seem that the Condition of the Gospel Covenant is violated of many as truly as of the Legal Covenant? Answ. It is as truly violated by many; but it is not violated by as many. For the Condition of the Legal Covenant is violated of all; Yea it is impossible to be kept, even to the Penitent; But the condition of the Gospel Covenant is otherwise, &c, There was therefore need of a New Covenant, unless mankind should perish, &c. Certainly no man is saved but by a Covenant kept; therefore the Covenant by which men are saved, is not the same with that by which no man is saved, it being kept by no man.
HEre he shows, 1. the twofol Conditional Covenant. 2. The necessity of an Evangelical Righteousness consisting in the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant; and that none can be saved that fulfills it not. 3. That the New Covenants Conditions is violated by many, viz. that perish.
IDem. p. 404. Observandum est esse Iustitiam quandam Evangelicam in Deo: ea vero est Dei Veracitas praestandis promissis Evangelicis, quando Conditio promissorum exhibita est. ]
Pag. 78. Fides Considerat Christum ut Redemptorem, adeoque Sanctificatorem nostrum.
Pag. 498. Fides sola non ideo statuitur Conditio faederis Gratiae, quasi Vita obtineretur per faedus Gratiae sine poenitentia & bonis operibus; sed quia sola fide apprehenditur promissio Dei in faedere Gratiae.
[WE must observe that there is a certain Gospel Righteousness in God; and that is God's Truth in keeping Promises of the Gospel, when the Condition of the Promises is performed.]
Faith considereth Christ as Redeemer, and so as our Sanctifier.
[Faith only is not therefore made the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, as if Life might be obtained by the Covenant of Grace without Repentance, and good Works but because the Promise of God in the Covenant of Grace is apprehended by Faith only.
25. MR. Ant. Wotton, Defense of Perkins against Bishop, pag. 329. [We deny not that the Reward is to and for the Work; but that the value of the Work deserves it, which worth being wanting▪ the reward is bestowed upon the party according to his work, not for the desert of it; in another sense it is all one to say ▪according to the work] or [ • or the work]. As in general he rewards them that do well, Because they do well: and he punisheth them that do • ll, because they do ill▪ and so gives to both according or for their works.
Page 312, 313. [These are Bernard's words: [As it is enough to merit, not to pre • ume of merit: so to want merit is enoug • to condemnation]—It follows [No infants regenerate want merits, but have Christ's, whereof notwithstanding they make themselves unworthy, if they had opportunity to add their own, and neglected it, which is the danger of riper years] Infants saith Bernard, have Christ's merits; but if they come to years, they must also have some of their own. What merits to deserve heaven? then were Christ's insufficient: But they must have good works, without which they make themselves unworthy of any benefit by Christ. Is not this wholly our doctrine? Let us hear his Conclusion: [Have a care (says Bernard ) to have merits; having them, know they were given thee: hope for the fruit of them by the mercy of God, and thou hast avoided all danger of Poverty, unthankfulness, and presumption.]
IDem ib. pag. 226. At last you understand that we make not faith the Principal, much less the whole Cause of our Justification. To speak properly, we make it no true Cause at all; but only as you say, A condition required by God on our part; which he accepteth instead of fulfilling the Law, and thereupon forgiveth us our sins for Christ's sake.
Idem Lect. on John 1. pag. 452, 453. The act of faith, or believing, doth not bring Justification, and adoption or either of them, by any special excellency that it hath in itself; but merely and only by the place and office which the Lord of his own will and mercy hath assigned it, to be the condition on our parts, required, for the achieving of these favors and honors. The Covenant of the Law stood in these terms, He that doth these things shall live thereby: so that the condition was righteousness according to the exact Rule of the Law. By the Gospel the Lord enters into a New Covenant with man, the condition whereof i • , Believe and thou shalt be saved.] This is that which the Apostle teacheth us concerning the Lord's accounting of faith for Righteousness. Whereas by the Law, Righteousness was necessarily required, that a man might have an interest to Heaven; Now by the Gospel, faith is accepted instead of righteousness. Do this, saith the Law: Believe in Christ, saith the Gospel. So that when the question is of Reconciliation and the parts thereof, or either of them, whether it be by faith or no? The meaning is this, Whether believing be the condition which we are to perform, that we may be reconciled to God, or no? To this doubt the Apostle answereth, that Abraham believed God, and it (that is his believing) was counted to him for righteousness] Leg. ultr.
IDem de Reconcil. part. 1. l. 2. c 18. he cites many Authors to prove faith a condition of the Covenant, and addeth [Faith therefore is a condition, and such a Condition to Justification by Christ in the free Covenant, as Works were to Justification by the works of the Law. And therefore the Righteousness of the Law and Gospel are opposed to one another, Rom. 10. 6▪ 7. &c. and this in verse. 9. is explained by the Conjunction [ if] If thou believe: on which place Calvin gathers, that [as the Law exacteth works, so the Gospel requires that men bring saith to Receive the Grace of God] Whence it followeth that he that believeth in Christ, seeing he hath performed the Condition which the Gospel requires to be performed, is judged to have done no less according to the Gospel Covenant, then he should have been judged to have done according to the Legal Covenant, if he had performed most perfect obedience to the Law. And this is to Impute or Repute faith to Righteousness.]
IDem ib. pag. 379. [In this we differ from the Papists, that they make Man to be the efficient Cause of his own Justification. For faith, by which, or of which a man is Justified, doth not Iustifie of its own nature or strength, but only as it brings us into communication of Christ's Righteousness (as Calvin saith): Nor of itself or its own virtue, but only as a condition, and by Christ's virtue.]
Idem P. 2. l. 1. c. 5. page 127. n. 3, 4. Hemmingius affirming [that the same Righteousness is required in the Law and in the Gospel] Mr. Wotton denieth it, and saith [I prove it false by these Reasons, 1. When Righteousness which is the way to eternal Life is the same, the Covenant of God also for obtaining eternal Life, is the same. For the Covenants are divers, in respect of the Righteousness which is known to be their Condition; seeing it is evident that the Covenant dependeth on the Condition, and of it, as it were, borroweth its Nature. But in the Law and the Gospel the Covenant of God for obtaining eternal life is not the same, as the Apostle Gal. 3. &c.
Idem ibid. c. 6 p. 138. n. n. [Faith in Christ Crucified is a certain Righteousness. For it is an Obedience, and as it were, a conformity to the command of God, 1 Joh. 3. 23. therefore there is a certain Righteousness, which is not Commanded in the Law; and consequently there is a certain unrighteousness or sin, that dependeth not on the Decalogue in the Law. We may say the same of Repentance, and the use and abuse of Gospel-sacraments, of which, &c.]
The main thing I cite Mr Wotton for, is the attesting the Necessity of a personal Gospel▪ righteousness, consisting in the fulfilling of the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant.
26. REverend and learned Mr. Gataker in his shadows without subst. against Saltmarsh, hath these words, Page 41. [Pardon of sin and salvation are propounded and preached on Condition of Faith, Repentance and Newness of Life, which are the Conditions of the Gospel. Argument. That which is so propounded, as that being performed, Life and salvation may undoubtedly be attained, and without which it cannot be had, may well be termed a Condition. But such are the things before mentioned. They may therefore justly be termed Conditions.]
And pag. 40. Nor know I any reason why his Baptism for the substance of it should not be an example to us in these times, being the Baptism of Repentance unto remission of sins; that is, if I mistake nor, Baptism obsigning Remission of sins on Condition of Repentance. But this expression you take exceptions at, and cannot endure to hear Faith, Repentance and New obedience termed Conditions of Life and Salvation, &c.]
Pag. 48. [To your Demand, Is this free grace? I shall crave leave to return a counter-demand: suppose a King be content at the suit either of the parties themselves or some friend of theirs, to grant his gracious pardon, to a company of notorious Rebels, that had risen against him, set up some base desperate Rogue in his room, done him all the despite and mischief they were able to do, and being condemned, &c. upon condition that they acknowledge their offense, and their sorrow for it, with purpose and promise of living loyally for time to come; whether you would deem this to be free grace or no? Were he not a most ungrateful wretch that having his pardon on such terms granted and signed him, should in regard of those Conditions deny it to be free grace? And whether they do not blaspheme God's free Grace that deny it to be free grace, if it be propounded on terms of Belief, Repentance and Amendment of life? Sir, what ever you say of Us, take heed how you tell Christ, that he doth not freely save you, if he will not save you unless you believe &c.]
Page 49. Such exact working as might fully answer the Justice of God, was to Life required in the one Covenant: whereas that which comes far shor • of it, is in and for Christ, unto Life accepted in the other) vid. ultr.
Page 51. Do you either prove that Life and Salvation is not pro • ounded in the Gospel upon a condition▪ of believing in Christ, or that Repenting and Amending are not to life eternal as necessar • lie required as it?]
[Pag. 58. If the Gospel propound and promise pardon of sin and salvation without any condition at all required on our part, and on all • uch Conditions and qualifications, of Belief, Rep • ntance, and New obedience, destroy the freeness of Grace, then neither Christ, nor John the Baptist, nor the Apostles preached Gospel or free Grace; for they thus preached and propounded pardon of sin and salvation upon such terms from the first to the last.
And pag. 64. David and Peter did both of them again make up that breach that they had made by their sins between God and them, and did make their peace again with God, by their Repentance. If you will not believe me herein, you may believe David himself, if you so please, Psal. 32. 5.
2. Christ is the only Peace-maker, who by the blood of his Cross hath made Peace, &c. And yet in that Peace so purchased, without Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience, can no man have any part.
So in answer to Saltmarsh, pag. 19. he proves that God loveth us for his own Graces in us, and our exercises of the same: And in his shadows without substance, pag. 46, 47. he shows that Repentance and Obedience are Conditions n • cessarily to be performed by all those that expect Life, or Pardon of sin and salvation by Christ: but have not a receiving nature and relation to Christ as Faith hath (all which I easily acknowledge.) See also, ibid. pag. 36.
27. MR. John Ball, a man of a clear and sober Judgment, and of precious memory in the Church with us, in his Treat▪ of the Covenants, pag. 20. saith, [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 only a precedent qualification or Condition to final forgiveness and eternal bliss. If then 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 only Instrumental Faith, or belief in the Promises of free mercy is the only Condition.]
So pag. 21. [The walking in the Light, as he is in the Light, is that Qualification whereby we become immediately capable of Christ's righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation; which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification, taken for Remission of sins, or actual approbation with God.
And pag. 73. Works then, or a Purpose to walk with God▪ Justify as the Passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification, or as the qualification of that Faith which Justifieth.
IN the first of these sayings, Mr. Ball gives as much, and the very same place to Works of Obedience as I do: though he give more to Faith (at least in words;) and by that means puts a greater difference between them. Yet I confess them to differ in the nature of the acts as much as he doth▪ Faith being the Recipient Conditional act, and Obedience not Recipient: And in the Office I maintain that Faith hath so far the precedency, that not only without the Causality, or Conditionality, but also without the presence of Works of outward Obedience, it is sufficient (as the Condition) to our being put into a Justified state. 2. And therefore Mr. Ball in his second passage saith more then I do for walking in the Light: though I believe, he meant no more. 3. And in the third passage he saith the same as I: For he meaneth not that Works are Passive in their own nature: that were an absurdity and plain contradiction: but that as to the effect of Justification they are no causes, but Passive qualifications of the subject, making it morally capable thereof. And he puts both Works, and A purpose to walk with God, because A purpose and Covenant to obey (which is heart-subjection) is enough to our being first Justified; but it must be actual Obedience that must concur to the continuance of that state, and to our final Absolution, as Mr. Balls first passage expressly affirmeth.
28. MR. Jos. Meade is so large and express in giving as much, if not more to Works then ever I did, that I must avoid the recital of it, as too long for this place. I desire the Reader to save me that labor, and peruse five whole exercises of his which aim at this scope, viz. on Math. 7. 21. on Act. 10. 4. on Psal. 112. 6. on Neh. 13 14. 22. on Math. 10. 41. and the end of that on Luk. 2. 13, 14. Though he put Obedience into his definition of Faith, and said more then I Judge convenient, yet I believe his sense was sound.
Pag. 330. on Neh. 13. he saith, [Nay more we deny not, but in some sense, this Reward may be said to proceed of Justice. For howsoever originally it cometh of God's free bounty, &c. Yet in regard he hath covenanted with us, and tied himself by his Word and Promise to confer such a Reward, the Reward now in a sort proveth to be an Act of Justice, namely of Justitia promissi, on God's part, not of merit on ours: for promise we know once made amongst honest men, is accounted a due debt, &c. Lastly for the word Merit, it is not the name we so much scruple at, as the thing, wont nowadays to be understood thereby: Otherwise we confess the name might be admitted, if taken in the more large and general sense, for any work having a Relation to a Reward to follow it, or whereby a Reward is quocunque modo obtained: In a word, as the correlatum, indifferent to merces Gratiae, or Justitiae. For thus the Fathers used it, and so might we have done still, if some had not grown too proud and mistook it, &c.
If any man will read the rest of those five exercitations, I do not fear lest he should yet say that I give more to Works, then Mr. Meade either as to pardon or salvation.
29. ZArnovecius de satisfaction contr. Socin. pag. 53, 54. [Ex his aliisque Scripturae sententiis unusquisque facile perspicit, homini ad declinandum Justitie divinae Iudicium, & ad Consequendam miserecordiae promissionem, duas esse Conditiones datas. Vna est semen benedictum, Christus, ejusque mors, & sacrific um. Altera, fides in Christum & Poenitentia. Harum Conditionum magna est diversitas. Vna simplex est, non Conditionata, & (uti loquuntur) simpliciter data, sine alterius dignitatis respectu. Altera vero est conditionata, & secundum quid, data; hoc est, omnem Authoritatem & certitudinem ex primâ illâ percipiens; p • nitentia nimirum & fides in Christum. Prior conditio ex nulla alia dependet, sed per se ipsam & à se ipsa authentium est, & omnem ex se alteri tribuit vim, virtutem ac dignitatem. Hinc prima illa magis est principalis & praecipua, haec vero minus principalis & vilior. Haec major minor{que} principalitas in eo consistit, quod prior illa causa sit efficiens expiationis ac securitatis à Dei Iustitia, & assecutionis miserecordiae. Altera rursus posterior, causa est Instrumentalis seu organon Acceptationis applicans reconciliationem & miserecordiam acquisitam. Illa respicit ad Iustitiam: haec ad miserecordiam: Illa satisfit Judici justo sine Justitiae suae laesione sive imminutione▪ prout de caelo ipsemet clamat, Mat. 3. 17. & 17. 5. in quo complacitum mihi est: vel in quo placatus sum seu acquiesco. Ista vero altera, fide scilicet & Poenitentia, homo sibi satisfacit in Conscientia sua ut sine ulla à Justitia Dei offensione consistat. Vt igitur error enormis est eorum qui conditions hasce in Justificationis nostrae negotio confundunt, ita peculiariter Socinus graviter hallucinatur, & in Blasphemiam erumpit dum ad Conditionem hanc, fidem scilicet & Poenitentiam, quae minus est principalis, oculis conversus, & huic soli innixus, causam esse ipsam asserit efficientem & meritoriam miserecordiae acquisitae: Alteram vero magis principalem, sine qua instar corporis esset animae destituti, seu putaminis nucleo vacui, coecus praetergreditur, & quasi non visam negligit: si enim sola nudaque in Christum fides & Poenitentia sufficerent, ad miserecordiam Dei consequendam, cujus quaeso erat usus Conditio illa prior alteri huic praemissa? nimirum promissio & exhibitio sacrosancti, ejusque mortis & sacrificii, & expressa injunctio ut hominum oculi & fides ad semen hoc sacro-sanctum sint directa. Vim itaque Socinus facit Deo, disjungens ab eo conjuncta, & quod priori loco positum voluit, non saltem ultimo collocat, sed ex hominum plane memoria eximere & delere conatur.
[BY these and other Scripture-sentences, everyone easily seeth, that there are two Conditions given man that he may escape the judgment of God's Justice, and obtain the Promise of mercy. One is the blessed seed, Christ, and his death and sacrifice. The other is Faith in Christ and Repentance. There is great difference between these Conditions; one is simple, not Conditionate, and (as they say) simply given, without respect to another dignity, (or worthiness:) But the other is Conditionate, and given secundum quid, that is, receiving all its authority and certainty from the former: to wit, Repentance and Faith in Christ. The first condition dependeth on no other, but is of itself, and from itself authentical, and giveth from itself to the other all its force, virtue and dignity. Hence the first is more principal and the chief: but the other is less principal and viler. This greater or less principality consisteth in this, that the first is the cause efficient of expiation & security from God's Justice, and of obtaining mercy. And the latter is an Instrumental cause, or organ of acceptance applying reconciliation and mercy obtained. That respecteth Justice: this mercy, by that satisfaction is given to the just Judge▪ without the hurt or imminution of his Justice, as himself proclaims from heaven, Mat. 3. 17. and 17. 5. in whom I am well pleased, or in whom I am appeased, or rest satisfied. But by that other, to wit, Faith and Repentance, man satisfieth himself in his own conscience, that he may consist without any offense from the Justice of God. As therefore it is a heinous error of them, who confound these conditions in the business of Justification, so peculiarly doth Socinus err, and break forth into blasphemy, while turning his eye to this Condition, to wit, Faith and Repentance, which is the less principal, and resting on this alone, he affirmeth it to be the efficient and meritorious cause of obtaining mercy. But the other more principal, without which this would be as a body without a soul, or a shell without a kernel, he blindly passeth over, and neglecteth, as if he saw it not. For if only bare Faith in Christ and Repentance would suffice to obtain God's mercy; of what use, I pray you, was that former Condition premised to this? to wit, the Promise and exhibition of the holy one, and of his death and sacrifice, and the express injunction, that men's eyes and Faith be directed to this Holy seed. Socinus therefore doth violence to God, disjoining what he hath conjoined, and that which God would have put first, he doth not so much as let it follow after, but endeavoreth wholly to remove and blot it out of the memory of men.]
Though I judge some of the expressions here scarce convenient, yet here you may see the substance of what I maintain concerning the necessity of the subordinate Evangelical Condition, to escape Justice and attain the Promise of mercy; that is, to be Justified, and that Repentance as well as Faith is part of that Condition; and both called the Instrument or Organ; and therefore that he taketh the word Instrument in a larger sense.
30. DAn. Chamier Panstrat. Tom. 3. de fide. li. 12. c. 4. §. 16. pag. (mihi ) 375. [And this is a certain Argument. All Love is an act of the will. But Faith is love: therefore it is an act of the Will. The minor is proved: because true Faith is that which credit in Deum, believeth on God. But to believe on God, is to love God. August. in Psal. 130. This is to believe on Christ, to love Christ. In Johan. Tract. 29. What is it to believe on God? By believing to love, &c. ]
(Thus it appeareth that Faith in Christ, is love to Christ in Chamiers judgment: and therefore love justifieth: and I shown before that Calvin makes sperare, hoping, to be justifying Faith, (and so do many others) and so Love and Hope must Justify according to them.)
Et lib. 15. cap. 4. Sect. 27, 28. pag. 518. [Conditions in Contracts or Covenant, we observe are of two kinds, which I think good to distinguish by names, though perhaps less proper ; some are Precedent, others Consequent. I call those Precedent, which cause the Contract, ex formula, do ut des; As when a man selleth Land for a certain sum of money. So in contracting matrimony, there is a mutual Donation of Bodies. Such Conditions as these do not only by the defect of them destroy (or rescind) the contract, but also do constitute (or lay) the foundation of it, and as I may say, the essence. But the Consequent are added to the Precedent as depending on them. They are truly mutual between both parties: but they oblige but one party only; so that because of them the other is bound to do no more (or is no further obliged) As if one▪ upon the giving or selling of Land, do impose an annual Pension of money to be distributed to the poor. So daily in contracting marriages, the Condition of a Dowry is added. Now such kind of Conditions as these are wont to make void the contract by their absence▪ but yet not to effect the contract; yea unless the sale were already full and perfect, there would be no yearly Pension (or Payment) of money: And before this can be, it is requisite that the buyer have not only the right of Propriety, but also that he have taken possession of the Land, that is, that the seller have performed his part.
Thus the Law of Works exacteth the fulfilling of the Law, as the Antecedent Condition, without which, not only cannot man have possession of life eternal, but not so much as Right to life eternal. But in this sense of a Condition, the Law of Faith admitteth not Works: but only in the other: that is, that by virtue of the life already given because of Faith▪ Works should be necessary▪ so that he that performeth (or exhibiteth) no Works, should lose (or fall from) all that Right which he had, or seemed to have, by external Vocation: though otherwise Works are not the cause of giving life.
I Can scarce express my own thoughts more clearly then Chamier here doth, as to the sense▪ His Antecedent Conditions are those that are necessary to the very being of the Contract, or Reception of Right and Possession. His Consequent Conditions are such as are to be performed after Contract, Propriety and Possession; but yet such, as if they are not performed, the party forfeits all his Right, and disobligeth the other party. Of the former sort is Faith; Of the latter is sincere obedience; As the example of Chamier illustrateth it: (For I will not compare one to the contract for house or Land, and the other to the rent or homage, lest men find words to feed their contentious humors.) Or suppose a Prince give a Traitor a Pardon on Condition that he thankfully accept it, and also once a year come to him, and say, I thank you, and turn not Rebel again; (though he may possibly commit lesser offenses) in this case all is free: yet Conditional. Thankful acceptance is the Condition of the first Right: Annual acknowledgment and non-Rebelling of the continuance: Just so (as near as I can conceive) it is in our case: Faith with Repentance being the Conditions of our first Right and Possession: After Obedience and Gratiude (with the continuance of the said Faith and Repentance) being Conditions of the continuance or not losing our Justification.
Only here observe in Chamiers words, 1. That though the sense be very sound, yet the term of Consequent Conditions is less convenient; because it is taken from its respect to the first Right, and not to the form with its own proper effect: i. e. It is by him called a Consequent condition, because it followeth our Right to, and Possession of the benefit, which Faith goeth before: But indeed it is an Antecedent Condition of its own proper consequent (as all Conditions are); that is, of the continuance of that Right. And I express the same thing in other terms, viz. One is the Condition of our being first Justified and having Right to Life: the other of the continuance or not losing it.
2. Note that Chamier having plainly laid down the truth, for fear of seeming to countenance the Doctrine of the Saints Apostasy, applieth it to the seeming Right of the commonly called▪ But that Caution was needless, seeing the Law may threaten the justified themselves, that if they draw back, God will have no pleasure in them; and yet God may decree to preserve them from drawing back, yea by means of such threatenings to preserve them▪
31. DEodate Annotat. in Jam. 2. 24. [Seeing that it is the same Spirit that hath spoken by St. Paul and St. James, and St. Paul attributes Abraham's Justification and all Believers to Faith without Works: We must of necessity distinguish the meaning of this word justified: which is used by St. Paul for absolving a man as he is in his natural state bound to the Law, and subject to damnation for his sin; which God doth by a rigid act of Justice, that requireth full satisfaction, which seeing he could not get of man, he hath received at Christ's hands (who was the surety) imputed to man by God's Grace, and apprehended by a lively faith. Whereas St. James takes the same word for the approving a man in a benign and fatherly judgment, as he is considered in the quality of God's child, and living in the Covenant of grace, as having the two essential parts of that Covenant joined together: Faith to receive God's grace, and Christ's benefits, and works to yield him the duties of service and acknowledgment. And this justification is not opposite to the condemnation of a sinner in general, but to the particular one of an hypocrite, who rending asunder these two inseparable parts, showeth that he hath neither one nor the other.
Idem in Math. 25. 32. [In this judgment of God's Church, the ground of the condemnation of Hypocrites, is the default of Good Works, because that thereby is shown the falsity of their Faith and profession: and contrariwise the practice of them is the true proof of a lively Faith, and the accomplishment of the duties of the Evangelical Covenant on the Believers behalf, and the beginning of the spiritual life which shall never be perfected in heaven, unless it be begun in this world; See of this judgment, Psal. 50 4. Ezek. 34. 17. Heb. 10. 30. I am. 2. 24.]
32. LEarned Doctor Field in his Appendix to the third book of the Church, citeth many of the most learnrd Papists, as approving their Doctrine concerning Justification (though he reject the Papists on the other side): and in special those tha • plead for a twofold Righteousness (imputed and inherent) and a twofold presentation of Christ's Righteousness and Merits to the Father for us: 1. That our sins may be forgiven. 2. That our imperfect works of Righteousness may be accepted▪ and we saved. And he shows that it is but quoad effectus, as to the fruits, that God giveth us Christ's Merits or Righteousness, and not the thing itself, which is impossible. And p • g • 04. he saith, [But in the latter sort they plead the truth and sincerity of their hearts, and the sincerity of the righteousness that is found in them, and this for two Reasons, • . &c. 2. For that they know this is a Condition were withal the Promises of God made unto them for their good, are limited: and therefore if they found not this, they could expect nothing of God; and finding this, they need not doubt to obtain anything that is necessary for them.
And pag. 313. he shows, that though the Justified never finally fall from God, yet upon grievous sin, in some sort regnant, such as David's was, they lose their present actual claim to salvation, it being suspended till they Repent: But the Right itself they lose not.
And Chap. 12. of Merits, pag. 330. he saith, [ Anno 1541. in the time of Charles the 5 th , and by his appointment, there was a conference between six learned Divines at Ratisbone, for the composing of Differences in Religion, whereof three were chosen for the Roman, and three for the Reformed part: at which Cnoference Cardinal Contarenus was present. At this conference the Collocuters on both sides agreed in all the points that concern Justification, composed the differences touching the same, and offered the form of their Agreement to the Emperor and the Imperial States. In this agreement they left out the matter of Merit: Which when some disliked, and there wanted not in Rome, that took exceptions at their so doing, Cardinal Contarenus writeth to Cardinal Farnesius, and showeth at large that there is no Merit properly so named, out of the grounds of Philosophy and Divinity: and strongly proveth that there is no Merit of Eternal Life, because if there be, then men Merit it either before or after Justification. Not before; then they are enemies, &c. Not after; because to Merit, is to make that Due that was not Due before▪ whereas the happiness of eternal Life is due to the Justified by the Right of his Justification, so that the works of the Justified do not make the same newly Due.]
Judge by this story whether the moderate Papists and Protestants differ so far in the point of Justification, as some imagine.
33. NApier Lord of Marchistoun, on Rev. 20. pag. 242▪ [By Works here, we are Judged and justified; and not by Faith only, as also I am. 2. 24. testifieth: meaning hereby that of lively Faith, and of the good Works that followeth thereupon, man is Justified; and not of that dead Faith that is by itself alone without any good Works. Otherwise were the words of Paul, Rom. 3. 28. Express contrary to this Text, and to James; For Paul saith, We are Justified by Faith, without the Works of the Law; That is to say, Not without good Works whatsoever, but meaning that we are justified by lively Faith, with such small good works as our weak nature will suffer that Faith to produce, although it be without the precise works that the Law requireth. And for confirmation of this Interpretation and Union of these Texts▪ ye shall find that both James and Paul agree in divers places, that Faith without works is dead Faith, and serveth nothing to • ustification And again they agree both, that all works, how good soever they seem, that proceed not from Faith, are evil. And so it is all one to say with Paul, we are justified by fruitful Faith, or Faith that produceth good works, although not the works that the Law requireth; Or to say with Iame • , or here with St. John. We are Justified by faithful Works: Seeing a working Faith, and faithful works are inseparable, and none can have the one without the other. So for conclusion, these works by the which here we are Iudged, are to be esteemed good or evil not in themselves, or so far as they satisfy the Law (for so were all works evil, and imperfect) but in so far forth as they have or want Faith adjoined with them, they are accounted good or evil only.
34. THrogmorton of faith, pag. 6. [All this good comes to us, by believing Christ Jesus the Son of God, whom God hath sent from heaven to us to Redeem and save us, that great Prophet whom God hath raised up to us of our Brethren, like to us; and by Receiving him for our King, Priest and Prophet by faith, such a one as God hath sent and given him to us.]
Page 30, 31. [ Quest. By what means do we receive or draw these Virtues from Christ, or enjoy them in him? Answ. This is only by faith of him, that is, by faith receiving or going to Christ's Person, pitching on him alone as revealed and offered in the Gospel. Doct. Faith in Christ's Person, Name, is the only means of receiving all saving virtues from Christ, when we believe the Gospel and glad tidings offering us Christ • person with all his benefits and virtues and behold him to be such a one towards us, as the Gospel reveals and offers him to us, that is, our Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, our King, Priest and Prophet, then is he indeed become such a one towards us, and we are made such in him.] Page 33. [Believing the word of the Gospel offering us Christ, and embracing the same gladly, we receive Christ's person and all that is his,] Page 29. [He that turns from sin upon such suggestions, promises, persuasions as Christ makes to him, he receives Christ by faith first. And faith believing and receiving Christ for Prophet and only Rabbi, to be his Disciple, and as the only way and truth, it goeth before Repentance, which is nothing else but a walking in Christ, as we first received him by Faith.]
Page 63, 64. Let us care for nothing but to get Christ, and let Christ be the end of our faith and works, and then let Christ alone for bringing us to life, heaven, and happiness. Let us by Faith make way for Christ to come into our hearts to be our Prophet, Priest, King, and Shepherd, that we may receive him • ffering himself, and then he will make way for us to God, Heaven and eternal happiness.
Page 91, 92. [He that obeyeth not the Son, to follow and to be led and guided by him, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: but he that believeth in the Son, to follow him as his Shepherd, and his voice and doctrine, as Joh. 10. hath everlasting life. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I will give unto them eternal life. See 2 Thes. 1. 8, 9, 10. Because they obeyed not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be led and guided by him, the Prince of their salvation, but followed their own reason, lusts and senses, &c.
HEre I observe 1. That it is Christ's own person that is the first object of our saving faith, and 2. That Receiving or acc • pting him • s the principal act. 3. But not the only act; for believing the Gospel is one. 4. That the receiving of Christ himself is the condition of our interest in all his benefits following, and that they follow upon our interest in him. Of which benefits, Justification is one. 5. That this receiving which is requisite that Christ and his benefits be ours, is the receiving him entirely, as King, Priest, Prophet, Head, &c.
35. Dr. Tho. Taylor, Regul. Vit. page 55. Object. What? will you teach Justification by works? Answ. No, we call not men to Legal fulfilling of the Commandment, but Evangelical: as 1. When the mind delighteth in the Law of God as holy, just, and good. 2. When the heart hide • it, to conform unto it. 3. When the Affection desi • eth to fulfil it, &c. 4. When in his actions he beginneth that obedience, &c. This the Gospel accepteth, &c.] Page. 72. Er. 3. We are mere Patients in the Causes of blessedness, but in respect of Conditions we are not so: For as we said of faith, we may also say of good works; God enableth to them, but man worketh them, and walketh in the way of them to Blessedness. Not that our works are Causes, but Conditions, without which blessedness is not attained. See Mat. 25. 35.
36. Dr. Stoughton, In his Definition of Divinity, pag. 27. among the means to Happiness, reckoneth [Those pious acts of man which are necessary for the obtaining thereof, especially those that directly and immediately have God for their Obj • ct. Whether these Actions have a Relation of Efficiency to that happiness, under which Notion we conceive of means ordinarily, and perhaps not amiss in this case, if we speak of Happiness as it signifies that future state of glory: Or whether rather those actions are parts of it, &c. happiness itself, &c.
And Right▪ Mans Plea, page 32. of Serm. 6. [Faith comprehendeth not only the act of the understanding, but the act of the will too: so as the will embrace, and adhere, and cleave to those truths which the understanding conceives, and not only embracing merely by the assent to the truth of it, but by closing with the good of it, tasting and relishing it. As faith in Christ is not the Assenting of a man's mind, that Christ is the Savior, but a resultancy of the will on Christ as a Savior, embracing of him▪ and loving, esteeming and honoring him as a Savior. The Scripture comprehends both these together; and there is a Rule for it, which the Rabbins give for the opening of the Scripture, viz. verba sensus etiam denotant affectus: words in the Scripture which seem to imply matter of understanding only, import also matter of Affection, as Joh. 17. 3. Psal. 1. 6. &c.]
Serm. 7. p. 51. [ Doct. Sound Knowledge and Belief joined with sovereign fear, and love, and both these crowned with sincere Repentance and obedience, guided by the Light and line of true Religion, is the only way to true Happiness. They are all of them in their places of Absolute necessity, and without any one of them a man cannot attain to that Happiness that we aim at, &c. 2. All these are required absolutely; take them divisively, by themselves, &c. • nowledge and Faith are necessa • y as the very foundation and groundwork of the whole building; repentance and obedience they are necessary too, as the very issue and product of all, as the evident demonstration of the other. Love and Fea • , those holy affections of the soul, they are necessary too as the very vital things, wherein I conceive Grace doth principally consist, &c. But yet • f we speak comparatively, which of all these were the most necessary, and wherein lieth the principality of these; I conceive in this former respect everyone of them may claim a principality, and go for a principal. But yet simply and absolutely the most characteristical of all these, is the Qu • lification of the heart and soul, the changing and turning of •• e Affections, when the Byas of them is set to Godward and Heavenward, there lieth the pri • c • pal]
And pag. 63. [It is a claer case, that these three are the only means, yea a perfectly sufficient means to make the Sodar and the Union between Go • and man, and to bring a man to the possession and frui •• on of God (for this comprehends the whole man) so that the whole man is poss • ssed of God, and inflamed by God, when his understanding knows him, and seeth the excellency that is in him, and when the Affections of his heart cleave to him, and close with the most sovereign Affections of fear and love, and then when all his whole man is at the command of this, &c.
Introduct. to Divinity, page 30. [The parts are, Faith apprehensive, and Love Active: Those truths are most properly fundamental, without which we cannot be made partakers of Christ, nor be enabled to do that by which we may be made partakers of God in him, and so the sum of all is faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.]
Right. Mans Plea, Serm. 5. p. 14. [In one word, the sum of all will be this. If he do embrace Christ (and God in Christ) as Christ is offered him in the Gospel, and resigns himself to the regiment and government of Christ, and doth so esteem and prize him, that he counts all as dross and dung in comparison of him, and can leave father and mother, and forsake all to follow him] See also Serm 6. p. 41.
If any say, that all this mentions not Justification▪ I answ. It mentions our uniting to God, and the true state of a gracious soul, and the true nature of saving faith, and the means of our participation of a state of Happiness; and shows that Faith hath many acts, and that faith in Christ containeth Loving Christ, as one of its principal acts. But the main thing that I intend, is, that all this being at least conditions of our salvation, they must needs be conditions of our Justification at Judgment. For I have yet met with no man, that by a denial would put me to prove, that whatsoever is the condition of salvation on our parts, is also the Condition of that final sentential Absolution.
37. MAccovius, (though he hold much of Antinomian doctrine) yet makes Love essential to Faith, as Chamier doth, and so must give as much to that in Justification as I. College. Dispute. de Iustific. Disp. 14. §. 10, 11, 12, 13. [But (saith Cameron ) thus To believe will be to will, and so faith must be confounded with Love. Answ. The Love of Complacency is one, and the Love of Benevolence another. Love of Complacency is required in faith to its Object: Hence Chemnitz on Melanchthon's common places of Justification, pag. 660. saith [Faith is such a knowledge in the mind, to which followeth assent in the will, and a motion of the heart apprehending and applying to itself with desire and affiance, that object which is man • fested to be good, so that it resteth in it. Object. But thus faith is confounded with Charity; which two the Holy Ghost distinguisheth specially, 1 Cor. 13. Answ. Charity there is considered as it is carried to God and our neighbor, but not as it is carried to Christ as the meritorious cause, and the benefits by him obtained, and promised to us in him; which is the Charity or Love of faith, and is distinguished from the former. 1. Because this Love respecteth the merit of Christ and his satisfaction, and also the promises of God, and resteth in them: But the other Love respecteth the persons in regard of whom it operateth or acteth somewhat. 2. This Love is such to the promises made to it, as that of a sick man to his Medicine; but the other Love is as Natural Love is in putting forth the acts of natural life: so is this in producing the acts of spiritual life, which acts are good works.
I hope hereafter I may (after Chamier and Maccovius ) affirm that faith in Christ essentially contains Love to Christ, and that Love to Christ Iustifieth, as faith doth, without the terrible charge of asserting an almost Socinian faith and justification.
38. THat great Philosopher and Divi • e, Rob. Baronius saith so much for the doctrine that I am blamed for, in his excellent Disp. de Peccato mortal. & Ven. that I know not what passage alone to cite, and therefore desire the Reader to peruse the whole: specially his Append. of the Possibility of fulfilling the Law of God, considered according to the Gospel Lenity. His second Assertion, page 122. is this [That Obedience to the Law which the Gospel or Covenant of grace, requireth of us, as precisely necessary to • alvation, is possible to us, by the ordinary helps of Grace. Yea all God's commands, whether Legal or Evangelical, one by one may be fulfilled, so far as they are now propounded by God, as strictly and precisely obligative, under pain of eternal Damnation.] For this he cites Davenant, Morton, White, Calvin, Polanus, Piscator, Zanchi, Bucanus, Rivet, Ames. And pag. 126. [that I may prevent all such evasions of the contrary minded, I thus propound my Argument. Besides the sanctity or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, there is required of us ourselves another, truly and really in our own proper persons to be performed, as necessary to salvation. It is required I say, not by way of merit or satisfaction, but of gratitude and new obedience, Luke 11. 28. John. 13. 17. Heb. 12. 14. But this obedience which is by us ourselves to be performed as necessary to salvation, is not that perfect obedience which exactly satisfieth the Law. For then no man should obtain eternal life: therefore this obedience which is by us ourselves to be performed as necessary to salvation, is that imperfect obedience, &c. You will say, a man may be saved though he perform not that obedience, &c. See further.
Page 24, 25. [3. We must hold, that the Covenant of Grace, though it take not away the Obligation of the Law, yet it takes away the Rigor, or severity and terribleness of that obligation. For though it set before our eyes an universal perfection of Righteousness, as to be affected, and endeavored to our utmost strength, yet doth it not strictly and precisely require it on the pain of eternal damnation. Indeed to a certain measure of obedience, to wit, such as by ordinary Grace is possible, it doth strictly and precisely oblige us, that is, on pain of eternal damnation, requiring that we actually have it. But to a farther measure, which by the power of ordinary grace we cannot attain, it obligeth us less strictly, to wit, requiring that we have it in desire and endeavor, v. g. to the perfection of parts, as they call it, it obligeth precisely: For it doth no otherwise promise eternal life, but on this Condition, that we actually have this.
Pag: 26, 27. [5. They differ in respect of the Repentance which is requisite to their pardon. For 1. As these mortal sins are grievous, horrid, and rare, and extraordinary in the course of a Christian life; so the Repentance which is necessarily required to the purging of them away, must be singular, more accurate and extraordinary, Ps. 51. Mat. 26. 75. Luke 7. 38. 2 Cor. 7. 11. But the ordinary and daily exercise of Repentance, is sufficient condignly in the Papists opinion, and in our opinion is graciously accepted of God, and taken for sufficient, to the purging away of venial sins. 2. To the purging away the guilt of mortal sins is required a special acknowledgement and Confession of them, and also a special grief and contrition, Ps. 51. 14. But for the purging away the greatest part of venial sins, our general, but humble, serious and sorrowful acknowledgement of our corruption, having adjoined that general deprecation [Cleanse thou me from secret sins], is accepted, Ps • . 19. 12. 3. The Repentance necessary to the remission of mortal sins, and to the salvation of them that commit them, must be perfectly Practical; that is, it must go forth into a real and Actual Cessation from all sins of that sort, Prov. 28. 13. John 5. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. Gal. 5. 21. But contrariwise the Repentance necessary to the pardon of venial sins, neither is, nor can be perfectly practical, as to this kind of sins, &c.] L • g. ult. p. 31, 32. & p. 72. For now under the Covenant of Grace, he requireth of a Justified man that he serve him, and fulfill the Law by av • iding all mortal sin simply, and endeavoring to avoid all venial sin, and ordinarily repenting of them, when he observeth that he hath committed them. This is required as a condition absolutely necessary to the obtaining of eternal glory.
39. WEndeline Theol. Christ. l. 1. c. 19. p. 395, 396. The Gospel, however taken, hath conditional promises. The Papists here assent to us, but not without Calumny. For they feign that we make the Gospel promises to be absolute. Prop. 2. The Gospel most largely taken hath the promise of eternal life, on condition either of faith only, or faith and new obed • ence toge • her, or of fulfilling the perfect Law by our own strength ( as rehearsing the Law of works): and so it maketh mention not only of the Evangelical condition and Righteousness, but of the Legal too. Pr • p. 3. The Gospel largely taken, hath the promise of eternal life, on condition of faith and new obedience. Of the condition of faith there is no doubt: no • of the condition of new obedience conjunct with faith, Rom. 8. 13. Heb. 12. 14.
40. AMesius Medull. l. 2. c. 1. sect. 30, 31, 32, 33. [Indeed our obedience is not the Principal or meritorious cause of eternal life. For we receive both Right of this Life and the life itself, of the Grace and gift of God, for Christ apprehended by faith. But yet it is a cause, in some sort, administering, helping and promoving towards the possession of this Life, the right whereof we had before. In which regard it is called the way in which we walk to heaven, Eph. 2. 10. And it promoteth our life, both of its own nature, as being some degree of that Life itself, still tending to perfection: and also by virtue of God's promise, who hath promised eternal life to them that walk in his precepts, Gal. 6. 8. For though all our obedience be imperfect, &c. yet in Christ it is so grateful to God, that it is crowned with the greatest reward. The promises therefore made to the obedience of the faithful, are not Legal, but Evangelical, though some call them mixed, Mat. 5. 3.
And li. 1. cap. 26. he makes Vocation to have two parts, the offer of Christ and the Reception of him: in respect of which reception, he saith Sect. 19. Vocation is called Conversion, and Regeneration; and distinguishing this Reception into Passive and Active, he saith, Sect. 21. The Passive Reception of Christ is that whereby the spiritual Principle of Grace is ingenerated in the will of man. For this Grace is the foundation of that Relation in which man is united to Christ. See more the description sect. 19.
Though I do not think that the Reception of the Principle of Grace is to be called the Reception of Christ; (himself saith, sect. 2. that the union is Relative: and then the Passive Reception must unavoidably be the Reception of a Relation, or of Christ as Related, or to be Related to us, and not of a quality) yet here is more give to internal Grace then I do: when that this Passive Reception of Grace, called Regeneration, as being the beginning of the new Life and Conversion, because all they that are called effectually are in whole converted from sin to Grace, from the world to follow God in Christ, I say, when this which himself doth thus describe, is made the very foundation (that is, the nearest efficient) of our Relative Union with Christ, and so giving us Christ, must give us Justification and other benefits with him; this is much more then ever I said, for any internal qualification of man whatsoever, much Less for outward works.
41. VRsine Catech. p. 514. qu. 91. [Good works are necessary to salvation, not as a Cause to the effect, or as merit to a Reward: but as a part of salvation itself, or as an Antecedent to its consequent; or as a means without which we come not to the end. Indeed it may be said that on the same Reason they are necessary to Righteousness, or to Justification, or in them that are to be Justified, as a consequent of Justification, with which Regeneration is inseparably conjunct, &c. But its safe • yer said, that good works are necessary in the Justified, and in them that shall be saved: Its ambigiously said that they are necessary in them that shall be Justified, because it may be understood that they are necessary before Justification, and are Causes of Justification.
42. D. Pareus in Mat. 25. 42. [As to the Causal [for] I say, that it doth indeed signify a Cause, but not meritorious of the Kingdom, but declaratory of the Righteous sentence passed by the Judge; that of right the Kingdom is adjudged to the sheep, because by Works they declared themselves truly sheep, that is, Believers. Some there be that grant (which I would not d • ) that works are an efficient Cause of the Kingdom, but not by way of merit, but as a way and means, &c.]
And on Heb. 10. 36. [Good works also are necessary in Relation to salvation; not as an efficient or meritorious Cause, but as a Causa sine qua n • n, without which salvation is not obtained; (He calls patience a conservatory Cause.)
On Heb. 5. 9. [But this fruit (of Christ's death) the Apostle saith belongs not promiscuously to all, but to them only who obey him; For only these do accept the offered benefit. The rest by their own fault are deprived of it, because they obstinately refuse it: To obey Christ is not only to prof • ss the name of Christ, but it is to acknowledge Christ the only perfect Redeemer, by true affiance to adhere to him and to live worthy the Gospel. This Condition is in the whole Gospel required in them that must be saved. Universal Grace belongs only to the obedient.
On Gen. 17. p. 1130. The substance of the Covenant lieth in the promise of free Reconciliation, Righteousness and Life eternal, by and for Christ freely to be given, and in the restipulation of our moral obedience and Gratitude.
Idem Bellarm. Castigat. de Iustif. l. 1. c. 12. p. 193. [As to the acts of the year 340. it is true indeed, that between the seven Reconcilers of the doctrine of the Papists and Protestants it was acted and Judged, that for the sake of the public tranquility, it should not be taught [that faith alone Justifieth] but the word Alone should be omitted, because the Papists said that it bred scandal to the people, and made men negligent about good works.]
Idem ibid. l. 5. c. 3. p. 1245, 1246. [But 2. Let us understand that According to Works, signifieth an Analogy or measure of good Works and of evil, as it may fitly be understood, and we also have elsewhere interpreted. There is then an Ambiguity in the word Analogy, or proportion, and we must distinguish between a Preportion Causal, meritorious, and a proportion Conditional. A Causal Meritorious Proportion of works and reward is when greater or lesser works are the Cause or merit of a greater or lesser Reward. A Conditional proportion is when Greater or lesser works are not the cause or merit, but only the Position of the Condition, under which a greater or lesser reward is to be had. In evil works or sins, there are both proportions, Causal or Meritorious, and conditional of the works to the Reward. Of good works, This proposition is false, According to w • ose proportion, • ternal life is promised, that is meritorious of eternal life. F • r here is understood not a Causal, but a Conditional Proportion, &c. For they have not the Conditions of Merit properly so called; But they are the p • sition (or performing) the Condition on which God doth promise and distribute the Rewards of eternal life and glory.
And doubtless when the business of the last Judgment is not to examine whether Christ hath satisfied for us or not, but whether we have performed the Conditions on our part, on which the benefits of his satisfaction, especially eternal Life, were promised, it must needs follow, that so far our Iustitia Causae in that trial will lie in our Actual performance of those Conditions, which is our personal Evangelical Righteousness; and according thereto we shall be Justified; that is, adjudged to be the heirs of Life, and not of Damnation.
43. RIvet, Apologet. Contr. Grotii Votum (Printed Lugdun. Bat. 1643.) And pag. 134. as printed Genev. fol. in the end of his Catholic. Orthodox.) [Grotius said, that every Way hath the nature of a Cause, at lea • t sine qua non. I answered, that that might be granted, but yet it is an ambiguous speech, because a Causa sine qua non, is improperly called a Cause.]
And before sect. 36. p. 64. (Lugd. Impress.) & p. 132. Genev. ) Yet shall the Crown be given to good Works done in Christ, of Justice, not of dignity and equivalency of the work with that Crown, but of the Justice of God's promise. For it is Just that he should do what he promiseth, and he cannot do otherwise.
And in Cathol. O • thod. Tract. 4. Qu. 17. p. 318. [We say with the Scripture, that the Relation of the works to the Reward doth herein consist, that by the liberal promise of God there is the same respect between them, as between Antecedents and Consequents by Covenant, &c. because it pleased God so to appoint it: who yet in that appointment would show that he is delighted in the good works of his own, and animateth them to the exercise thereof.] See further.
And page 319. [God rewardeth them as a Just Judge. 1. Because he hath promised to reward his children's obedience, though imperfect: 2. And it is Just that he should keep his promises.
44. PEt. Martyr (though he oft speak unwarily in this point) saith, Thes. Argent, Proposit. post. Loc. Com. p. 1008. [We grant that a man is Justified by Works: But that is as to inherent Righteousness, and as to the rewards, having before obtained of God a good and holy life.]
And p. 1027. The works of the Law ought not to be altogether denied to be causes of our Righteousness and Salvation: But this is to be denied, that they are the chief and whole causes of those good things: It is the mercy of God which is the chiefest and truest cause of our Justification.]
Pag. 1028. They are esteemed doers of the Law with God, who believing in Christ, do studiously exercise themselves in the obedience of his commands. In that sentence of Daniel, Thou shalt redeem thy sins by Alms; he means by sins, the punishment and penalty which is due to sin.
45. DR. Willet on Rom. 2. Cont. 3. 7. [The meaning of this sentence, The doers of the Law shall be Justified, is the same: God will Approve, Justify, Reward them that do the Works of the Law, whether Jew or Gentile. Yet it followeth not that a man is therefore Justified by the Works of the Law; But God Approveth and Rewardeth the workers, not the Hearers and Professors: so here the Apostle treateth not of the Cause of Justification, which is faith without the works of the Law: But of the difference between such as shall be Justified, and such as are not: Fayus. They only which have a lively faith, which worketh and keepeth the Law in part, and supplieth the rest which is wanting in themselves by the perfect obedience of Christ, they shall be Justified; not those which only Profess the Law and keep it not. The Apostle then here showeth who shall be Justified; not for what.] [Good works are required a • a Condition in those which are to be saved, not as a Meritorious cause of their Salvation.]
46. SAm. Maresius, College. Theol. loc. 13. p. 337. [The necessity of Repentance, as a means, we here also acknowledge, seeing that to the Impenitent there can be neither salvation nor remission of sin, &c. Remission of sin belongs to it, neither formally, nor meritoriously, nor satisfactorily; but at most, 1. Conditionally; as this is offered to us in the Gospel, on the Condition of Repentance and Faith. 2. Dispositively, &c. 3. Iudicatively and ostensively, &c. Far be it from us therefore to make that Remission with the Papists to be an effect properly so called, of Repentance; when that is due only to God's Grace by Christ, &c. But its partly a necessary Consequent adjunct of it, in as much as under that Condition, as also of New obedience, (though not for it) remission of sins is propounded and offered to us; seeing it is inconvenient to remit sin to him that Persevereth in sin.]
E • Loc. 11. sect. 51. [ This Remission is not propounded or promised in the Gospel, but on the Condition of duty to be performed, so that he can never be partaker of it, that neglecteth this. The same must be said of the Illative for, Mat. 25. 35.
Et sect. 50. [And if any causality be to be ascribed to good works of sanctification, as to eternal Life, it cannot be properly Efficient, Principal or instrumental, but rather Formal or Material, in as much as in the study of piety we begin eternal Life, &c.] Et Exeges. Confes. Belg. Art. 22. p. 318. he confesseth Faith and Repentance to be Conditions.
47. HEn. Alting▪ Loc. Com. Part. 2. pag. 688. [The Gospel doth not promise salvation on condition of good works as causes effecting it; but on Condition of Faith and Repentance: the one as an Instrument of accep • ing Rem • ssion of sins the other as a Causa sine qua non: nor on condition of such Repentance or New obedience as is perfect, but such as is by Grace begun▪]
All these show, that though they make Faith an Instrument, yet making Repentance and obedience to be Conditions or Causa sine qua non, they yield all that I desire.
48. ARetius in Hebr. 13. 16. [The Reason is good. Whatsoever is available to us to appease the wrath of God, that ought the godly studiously to seek. But bounty to the poor is available to appease the wrath of God, Therefore they ought studiously to exercise bounty.
49▪ PErkins. [True Gain, Vol. 1. p. 650. Faith must be considered as a Cause, or else as a way of salvation. If as an internal cause in us, it only justifieth and consequently saveth us: If as a Way, it doth not save alone: for other virtues and works, though they be not causes, yet are they ways to eternal life, as well as faith] So page 649, 651, &c▪ Here is more indeed given to faith, then I do, but I think, no less to works.
50. ALstedius Distinct. Theol. c. 17. p. 73. [The Condition of the Covenant of Grace is partly Faith▪ partly Evangelical obedience or holiness of life proceeding from faith in Christ] Et p. 107. c. 24. Sect. 20. [Rewarding is either from proportion of merit, or the Grace of the promise (or the promise sake.) In the latter sense God rewardeth good works] Page 109. Good works are necessary by necessity of pr • cept and means, but not of merit.]
51. POlyander in synops. Purior. Theolog. Legdensium Disp. 34. Sect. 26▪ 36, 45, 46▪ 47, 48. 51. acknowledgeth works a condition required in those that shall be saved (and then it must needs be required in those that shall be judged to Salvation, that is finally justified) And that salvation is given as a reward, which the Godly may and must look at to quicken them in th • ir care: and saith [that Christ will not give that Crown according to the ridig estimate of works, &c. but according to the anological r • le of Verity correspondent to the quality of every ones work, whether good or evil, &c. And he cites Rom. 2. 7, 8▪ 1 Thes. 1▪ 5, 6 7 and adds that Christ will give the Crown of righteousness to the works of the faithful according to the Gospel, of free Covenant, &c.
52. ROb. Bodius in Ephes. c. 2. 8▪ &c. page 273. brings in the Papists objecting from Mat. 15 28. M • r. 7. 29. For this saying go thy ways, &c thus [The Lord saith not, Thy daughter is saved by thy faith, as if it were by a means or instrument only of attaining that benefit, as you say, but for this saying as a meritorious Cause. Answ. 1. Confession is taken for faith itself. 2. Faith is here taken in an objective sense, as it signifieth Christ apprehended by faith, to whose only merit this benefit is to be ascribed: but by the means of faith; which God requireth as an intermediate Conditon on our part to this, that any benefit from his bountiful hand may be obtained, &c. Unless that solution please better, which taking the name of faith properly, saith, that by that Spe • eh is not signified a Cause, but a Condition only, because all things are promised to him that believeth; whence it is no wonder, if when God giveth any benefit to the faithful, be is said to give it for faith which he necessarily requireth in the receiver: Not that he deserveth it by believing, but because God hath promised it to none but to the believer; and that of mere grace in the Mediator Jesus Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and Amen. ]
And cap. 4. v. 12, 13. p. 521. [Many things are necessary to us either as Causes, or as Conditions, or as Means, as Instruments, as Helps, as Props, by which we may be brought to eternal life: by which either the bars and impediments may be taken away, which block up to us the way and passage to eternal life, or the necessary stairs are laid under, for our ascending to the height of that sublimity; or else necessary strength is afforded us to go that hard Journey, and bear that hard conflict; or that the strength and force of our enemies may be broken and foiled. We have need of Knowledge, Constancy, Charity, Sanctity, Prayers, Good works, &c. But above all these we must seek faith as a certain Epitome and Compendium of them all.
53. DIckson in Heb. 9. 5. [Christ having now fully paid the price of Redemption, by that Merit and Efficacy is become and declared the Author, Lord, Donor, and Finisher of eternal life, to all that believe in him, and deliver themselves up to him for Discipline.
IDem in Iac. 5. 15. [He teacheth that there will follow a do • ble effect of this Anointing and Prayer. (1. healing) The other Effect, is, If any special sins have caused the disease of the sick person▪ God being entreated by the sick, and the Presbyters, will forgive them.
If forgiveness be the Effect of Prayer, then Prayer is the Cause of Forgiveness: which is more then a Condition.
Idem in Iac. 5. 20. [Because if they would admonish one another, and confess their sins one to another, and importune God by prayers for one another, and would be God's instruments for the conversion of any erring sinner: then should they also be his instruments of saving the soul of their neighbor from death, to which by error he was hasting; and withal they should be Instruments of covering and hiding a multitude of their erring brothers sins: who unless he had repented, his sins would have been produced in God's judgment, to Condemnation and death: which now after the admonition of the erring, and the repentance of the admonished, are covered.
If another man may be an Instrument of our pardon, which is an efficient cause, and that by other acts besides faith▪ then me thinks, other acts of our own may be Conditio • s, which is less: I should think another man can be no more a Cause of our pardon, then we may be of our own. And if another do therefore cause our pardon▪ because he draws us to conversion, then conversion itself would neerlyer cause it. This therefore is more then I affirm. Yet I know this Godly Divine saith as much against Justification by Works as others. But if the offended Brethren will but read almost any Protestant Divine on the Doctrine of Prayer, they shall soon find that they generally ascribe to Prayer more in terms, and as much at least in sense▪ for the obtaining of pardon, as ever I did to any act of man's whatsoever. Sure they who commonly make Prayer a Cause of forgiveness, would never have denied it to be so much as a mere Condition, and that with such indignation as these men do.
54. IUnius Parall. l. 3. in Haebr. 5. 9. [Christ is become the Author of Eternal salvation to all them that obey him, according to that Obedience which being received of the Father, he informeth in the minds of the Godly by the Spirit. In as much as the Promise of salvation is made to Obedience, and bequeathed in the Testament or Christ dying &c.
55. DOctor Jo. Reynolds P • elect. 169. & 170. pag. 659. 661. expounding Math. 12. 36 By thy words thou shalt be Justified, &c. saith, [The meaning is that all shall give account when they come to the Tribunal of Christ, and shall receive that which they have done in their bodies, whether good or evil, &c. So that this is the force of Christ's words, Thou shalt be justified or condemned according to thy works, among which Words are eminent; if so be that thy words have been agreeable to Godliness, good, profitable and fruitful to thy Lord, thou shalt enter into the joy of thy Lord: but if, &c. And Solomon saith most fitly to our Cause Death and Life are in the hands of the tongue; Prov. 18. 21 As thou sowest, so shalt thou reap; as he said in M. Tully▪ For the good use of thy Tongue thou shalt reap Eternal Life: For the abuse death.
Here is as much in sense to the magnifying of Works, and more in words then I have said. Note also that he maketh these phrases equipollent, [By thy words shalt thou be justified,] and [According to thy words or works thou shalt be justified.]
59. MR. Tho. Wilson in his Dictionary on the word Justice, saith, that the sufferings of Christ, and his satisfaction to the Father, derived to us by his Imputation of it to us, is received of us by Faith, and retained of us by Hope and Charity. ]
And in this Aenigmat. [What is that without which we cannot be saved, yet is no cause of our salvation? Answ. It is good works; which be no cause of our salvation; and yet the Elect which are of years, if they have space and time to do them, cannot be saved without them: for they be the way to the Kingdom, though not the cause of reigning.
57. FR. Gomarrus in the Epitom. of his Loc. Commun. per Sibelium, pag. 446. Loc. 44. [Works in respect of the faithful are not the efficient cause of Eternal Life, but the Antecedent • ondition necessary to salvation: whose certain consequent Eternal Life is, not its effect: not the cause of reigning but the way of the Kingdom.
And pag. 449. [By Relative Right God as a just Judge giveth the Reward, not respecting what is due to Works of themselves, but what of Grace he hath promised to them, and so hath made himself a Debtor of the Reward; as God, as a just Judge will give the Reward and Crown of Life Eternal to the faithful exercising righteousness▪ because he oweth it for his free Promise made to them that work rightly, by Right of his Truth and inviolable fidelity, Tit. 1. 2. Heb. 10. 23. and 6. 17, 18. Mar. 16. 16. Rom. 6. 23. but not on the Right of the worth of the works of righteousness, which are due and imperfect.
Believers also are called worthy of the Kingdom of God, 2 Thes. 1. 5. but Merit cannot be thence concluded, 1. Because Worthy is of larger sense then Merit: for this is only of strict Right: but the other oft belongs ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (favorable judgment) and Equity. For whatsoever is fit and convenient is called Worthy, though Merit be absent, Mat. 3. 8. and 10, 11. 38. In which sense Rev. 3. 4. Believers being fit and meet for the Kingdom, are called Worthy: Because it is the Condition of them that shall be saved, to do their duty, but not the Merit of salvation.]
[Afflictions also are said to Effect for us a greater weight of Glory, &c. And thus to effect the weight of Glory is taken for, to be an occasion and condition requisite, which being put (or performed) the Celestial glory will surely follow.]
Pag. 456. [The nearer (subservient cause internal) is our Mystical Union with Christ, and in the adult, the hand of Faith which embraceth Christ, and uniteth us to him, 2 Cor. 11. 2, 3. Ephes. 3. 17. and 5. 25, 26, 27. Not by any inward power, as a Natural or Artificial Instrument, or by the force of the general or special form of Faith: But by the free Covenant of the Gospel, &c. And so Justification is an effect of Faith, as a supernatural Instrument and by accident: because we are not justified by its Internal force of itself: but by Accident of God's Promise freely made to Believers, Mar. 16. 16.
Also pag. 466, 467, 454. he makes Sanctification one of God's ends in our Justification, and putteth it in the definition of Justification as its end, and that must needs be more excellent then the means, as such.
58. PAul. Ferrius Scholastic. Orthodox. c 33. p. 543. [This the whole Scripture teacheth, while it excludeth Works from our Justification, and teacheth that we are Justified without them: Which is nothing else but that Works do not enter the formal cause of our Iustisication. ]
If this be all that the Scripture excludeth Works from, then I may be confident that • contradict not any of those Scriptures. I know Ferrius himself saith that Faith justifieth only as a Relation. But I never knew yet what such a Faith was, which is a Relation. I took it to be an Action or Habit: though I easily confess it is Related to its Object as other Acts are.
And here you may see that it cannot be a proper Instrumentality that these Divines ascribe to Faith as to Iusti • ication: for a Relation is not such an Instrument, nor is an Act a Relation. I remember Mr. Anth. Burgess saith (Of Justification, Lect. 21. p. 182. [ That Relation which is in their (Infants) Faith to Christ's Merits, is the Instrument by which they obtain Remission of sin: [So that it is such an Instrumentality as is not proper to Acts or Habits, but the Instrumentality of a Relation of the seed of Faith to Christ's Merits, which can be no proper Instrument of Justifying: Or if they would condescend to call it a Moral Instrument of Receiving Christ, yet in the explication they would manifest that it is its being the Condition, which is its nearest interest in Justification.
59. MUsculus Loc. Com. of Remission of sin, pag. ( mihi ) 614, 615, 616. having shown that Christ died for all, and is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, which he expounds of all mankind, that are or shall be in the world from first to last; he next shows [By what means pardon of sin is obtained. Answ. Remission is wholly free, and not due to our merits, but of mere undeserved Grace: Yet equity itself requireth that it be not conferred or received but by certain means and Conditions. Of the Means I will speak in this Article; of the Conditions in the next. As of Justification, so of Remission there is a twofold means to be acknowledged: One In which; the other By which it is conferred and received. The means In which, is Christ, &c. The means By which is double: One is by which Remission is Given▪ the other by which it is Accepted. The means of conferring, the Schoolmen call Applicatory; Unless the Merit of Christ, say they, be applied to this or that man, no sin is blotted out; seeing it is blotted out only by the virtue of Christ's Merit: Therefore seeing the Sacraments are the immediate Applyers of Christ's Passion to us, he that will have any sin pardoned, must have it by some Sacrament, in Act or in Desire.—But we say simply, that the means of conferring it, is the word of Grace, by which Remission is preached, whether generally and publicly, or specially and privately.—The means of Taking it, is not only whereby we are made capable of this Grace, but whereby we Take it, when its offered. A contrite and humble heart is capable of it: but it is one thing to be Capable, and another to Take it.—But when we Give this to Faith, that it Taketh Remission of sins, we do not exclude confession of sin, and Prayer: As good fruits are not excluded, when the Goodness of the Tree is commended: nor breathing and voice excluded, when we extol the force of eloquence. When therefore we read 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins: we must not understand it of a Confession which comes not from a belief of the word, by which we are reproved and convinced of sin. And when we pray, Forgive us our debts, I suppose it is manifest that we pray by the Spirit of Faith; therefore all this is rightly ascribed to Faith, which by it is performed to the receiving the grace of Reconciliation.]
4. On what Conditions are sins pardoned? In Christ as our only Propitiator, Mediator and Reconciler is the Remission of sin offered us by the word of the Gospel, and the gift of grace and mercy of God is Accepted by Faith. Yet are there certain Conditions without which this grace either is not Attained, or being Attained is not Retained. • . The first is true and constant Repentance—So Christ saith, Go, and sin no more: So saying, he signifieth that it is in vain forgiven, which after forgiveness is again committed; To what purpose is a disease cured, which being cured, is willfully revoked? As therefore Remission of sin is not obtained without true Repentance. so being obtained, without the constant custody of this, it is not retained. 2. The second Condition is that we be reconciled to our Brethren, against whom we have sinned; and either satisfy them, if it may be done, or else petition them to forgive us. He that hath unjustly taken away that which is his brothers, doth in vain hope to be forgiven of God, unless he restore that which is ill gotten, if he can restore it. Whence is that saying, Sin is not pardoned, till that which was taken away be restored. He knew this that said, If I have defrauded any man, I restore it fourfold.—3. The third is that we ourselves imitating the clemency of our heavenly Father, do forgive our debtors.—These are Conditions, necessary to the obtaining and Retaining Remission of sins; But yet there is no reason we should ascribe to them any Merit of our righteousness • , and detract from the grace of God. For we cannot satisfy the just judgment of God, either by Repenting, or by Reconciling our brother, or by pardoning his faults.
59. MVsculus in Gen▪ 22▪ 16▪ pag. 530 [So to one and the same thing, which is not unusual, two or more Causes are attributed: to wit, the Primary and the Secondary. The Primary Causes in this business are the Goodness and Truth of God. The Secondary are, the Faith and Obedience of Abraham. • o the Primary is to be ascribed both that God did Promise, and that he kept his Promises. To the Secondary (is to be ascribed) that the truth of God's Promises, so far as they were made to Abraham, was not hindered by Abraham's incredulity and disobeyed • ence. ]
Idem in Gen. 15. 6. pag. 352. he expoundeth Imputing Faith to Righteousness to be meant [so that that which is Imputed to righteousness, be accounted instead of Righteousness, and be of that force with him to whom it is proved, that what ever defects or sins do yet stick in the person justified, shall wholly be forgiven. In this sense is it here Imputed to Abraham to Righteousness, that he believed in God. He had before he • tated at the Promises of God, and considered more the defect of nature then the Truth and Power of God: which was altogether blameworthy But he firmly believed God prom • sing, such a Faith was • mputed to him instead of Righteousness: that is, for that Faith he was Reputed Righteous by God, and Absolved from all his faults. In this sense doth the Apostle use this place, Rom. 4. as is manifest to any that diligently readeth that which he citeth out of Psal 32. and accommodateth to this cause of Imputed Righteousness.—And we must consider what was the cause that Abr • h • ms Faith was so greatly approved of • od▪ that it was freely Imputed to him to Righteousness Two causes of this the Apostle gives: The first is the purpose of • ods grace, whereby he so from e • ernity appointed to justify them that believe in him. 2. That such a Faith gives God the glory of his Truth and Power.
Is it Faith itself, or Christ, that Musculus here saith is imputed to righteousness?
60. MR. Brinsley of Yarmouth in his late Treat. of Christ's Mediatorship, p. 141. saith, [These (Faith and Obedience) without any just offense, I may call the Conditions of this Covenant. Faith whereby the Covenant is Accepted, upon the terms on which it is te • dered; and Christ the Mediator of it Received: Obedience whereby it is Kept, viz. in an Evangelical way▪ in respect of desire and endeavor. This it is which the Psalmist calleth Keeping of the Covenant▪ Psal. 25. 10. and 103. 18. Not a Legal, but an Evangelical Keeping, when the Promises being believed, there is a serious desire and endeavor of yielding obedience to all God's Commandments.]
Treat. of Myst. Implantation. pag. 73. [Faith if it have not Works, is dead, being alone, viz as to Justification and Salvation. As Abraham's and Sarah's bodies were said to be dead, in that they were unapt for Generation, Rom. 4. 19. Even so Faith without Works is said to be dead, in as much as it is unapt and unable to produce those desired and intended effects, to justify and to save. True it is, Works are not properly a Cause of Justification, as Faith is commonly said to be, ( viz. Instrumental) yet they are a necessary Concomitant of that Faith which justifieth: requisite Qualifications in the person justified.
61. BIshop George Downame Treat. of Justification, pag. 15. [The true meaning of the Question, Whether we are justified by Faith, or by Works? is not as Opposing the Inward Grace of Faith, to the Outward Acts of Obedience, which indeed are the fruits of Faith: but as opposing the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith to that righteousness which is Inherent in ourselves, and performed by ourselves.]
Pag. 306. [According to the Sentence and Rigor of the Law we are sinners: Yet are we according to the Doctrine of the Gospel to be called just, and that by a twofold Justice: 1. And principally by the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed, &c. 2. By a righteousness begun, &c.]
Ibid. Bellarmine confesseth that our opinion were Right, if we did not hold Christ's Righteousness to be the formal Cause: but satisfaction given, &c. And we do not hold it the formal Cause. ( Rivet. disp. hath the same Concession.)
Pag. 305. [To be formally righteous by Christ's righteousness imputed, never any of us, for ought I know, affirmed.]
62. MR. Henry Ainsworth on Numbers 14. 34. And ye shall know my breach of Promise ] or my breach, that is, when I break Promise with you, or break off from you, ye shall know how great evil is upon you. For when men forsake God, he also forsaketh them, and breaketh his Covenant with them; that is, performeth not his Promise, which is Conditional▪ If men continue in his Faith, Deut. 31. 16, 17. Zach. 11. 10. Jud. 5. Rom. 11. 22.
63. ARch-Bishop Edwyn Sandys Serm. at Strausberge, on 2 Cor. 6. 2, 3. pag. 137. [We do very well know that there is no other medicine save Repentance only, to heal the wounds of our souls: no other way to restore ourselves again to our Fathers home, but only, Father, I have sinned: no other means to quench the wrathful indignation which our sins have caused to burn and flame as an Oven, but only our tears: though our sins be as red as Scarlet, or as fire, yet being bathed with the water of our eyes, they are scoured and made as white as snow.
And Serm. before the Queen on Isa. 55. pag. 67. [The Papists satisfaction is but money matter; and God is satisfied, not by Gold, but by blood; and with us he is pleased when our lives are amended. God is pacified by the mending of our manners; and he that ceaseth from sin, bringeth the wrath of God to an end, saith Lactantius.
64. MR. Tho. Shepherd of New England in his sound Believer, as he doth prove that the Doctrine of Justification before Faith, is Cross to the whole current of Scripture, and that it is a mere unsound device, to say that it is Declarative Justification, or to our own sense and feeling in foro Conscientiae when we are said in Scripture to be Justified by faith, it being opposed to the state of unrighteousness going before: pag. 228. &c. 107, 108. &c. (of the Impression 1645): So he makes the main difference between the faith of the Elect and Reprobate to lie in this that one takes Christ himself to sanctify and Rule them, and the other do not: and sure the main differencing part of that faith cannot be less then a Condition of our Justification [Pag. 204, 205. Observe it, that on these very terms the Lord tenders grace and mercy, Rom. 5. 17. And most certainly this is one Principal difference between the faith of the Elect and Reprobates, (and if I mistake not the principal): The Elect close with Christ for that end for which the Father offers him, that is, that they might possess his Son and all his benefits, and therefore come poor and empty for All. The Reprobates come not for All, but for so much and no more then will serve their own turn; in misery they would have Christ to deliver them, but what care they for spiritual mercies: In trouble of co • science, or after their soul falls into filthy lusts and sins, they come to Christ to forgive them and comfort them: but what care they for holiness and a new nature: Some sins they would have Christ save them from, but they regard not redemption from all: They cannot come to Christ that all the powers of darkness may be perfectly subdued, and their own sins and selves, conceits and wills may be led away captive by this mighty Conqueror; that Christ in all his Authority Grace, Peace, Life▪ Glory, might be forever advanced in them and by them. It was • ustin • complaint of many of his hearers, that Christum assequi, to have Christ • was pleasing to them; but sequi Chr • stum to follow Christ, this was heavy. To close with Christ's person is sweet to many: but to close with his Will, and to come to him that he would give them a heart to lie under it, this benefit they desire not: All Christ is useless and needless: but something from Christ is precious to them.]
• lso pag. 178, 179, 180, 181, &c. he shows that the form of Faith which Uniteth us to Christ is the coming of the whole soul to Christ out of itself. And that the Faith on which the Lord Promiseth mercy and salvation, is coming and returning to God. Jer. 3. 12. Ezek. 33. 10. Joel 2. 12, 13. Heb. 7. 25 Joh. 5. 40. That unbelief being a departing from God▪ faith can be nothing else but coming to him; and this is the proper obedience to the • ospel, as Works are to the Law.] And pag. 102, 103, &c. he shows that in this Turn, as Christ is the Good, the term To which, so sin and world, are the Evil, the term From which we are called: that we are turned first from darkness and then to Light, and first from the power of Satan and then to God: [For how is it possible to be turned unto Christ, and yet then also to be turned to sin and Satan? Doth it not imply a contradiction to be turned toward sin (which is ever from Christ) and yet to be turned toward Christ together?] p. • 03. He shows also p. 100. 98. that in this working of Faith by Vocation, to unite us to Christ; There is an actual Grace removing the Power of sin, before habitual or sanctifying Grace, the Spirit doing it immediately by an omnipotent act by that which is called a •• nating moving grace; Christ can and must first bind the strong man and cast him out by this working or actual • race, before he dwells in the house of man's heart by habitual and sanctifying Grace: Also that no man since the fall is a subject immediately capable of sanctifying or habitual Grace; nor any unregenerate man is in A Next disposition to receive such grace; and that the contrary is false and of affinity with some gross points of Arminianism: Also that there is a double resistance. 1. To a holy frame. 2. Of the God of Grace himself when he comes to work it, Job 21. 14. Ezek. 24. 13. The first is taken away in that which we call the Spirit of Sanctification after Faith: the second is taken away not only in the act of it, (as by terrors it may be in Reprobates Ps. • 6. 2.) but in some measure in the inward root and disposition of it (only in the Elect): there being, as hath been said, no more separation from sin, at this time required, then so much as may make the soul come to the Lord to take it away, &c.]
(All this is Mr. Tho. Hookers Doctrine too, so fully expressed, that I shall not need to recite his words. • do not undertake to maintain the soundness of all this; but only I show that he maketh as much necessary to our participation of Christ and his righteousness, and so to Justification, as • do.) And for the nature of the Justifying act: that it is by the Law of • race, hear what he saith, pag. 254. [ Q. What is it in general to justify? Answ. It is to pass Sentence of Absolution, to pronounce a sinner righteous; it is God's pardon: Remission of sins, &c. There is a double Court, wherein it is passed. 1. Publikely in the Court of heaven, or in the Court-rolls of the Word▪ (for there is no other Court of heaven where God speaks but this.) 2. Privately in the Court of conscience. By the first we are justified indeed from personal guilt: by the second we feel ourselves justified by the removal of conscience guilt] See further. ibid.
65. MR. Rutherford in his Survey of Spiritual Antichrist, part. 2. p. 62, 63. 38, 39, 40. saith, that though works be not Conditions to be done by our strength, &c. yet [They are of the same nature with our perfection in heaven, differing but in degrees as grace and glory do: that they are the way to heaven, as sowing is to Harvest, and that Christ maketh a Promise of Life eternal to him that doth his Commandments: that they are Conditions without which we cannot be saved: [Nor is it a Popish way by Works to say, We seek Glory, Honor and Immortality by well doing; Works are not so much Conditions of Justification, as Faith is: Yet are they Conditions required in those that shall be saved.] Good Works are so Conditions, as they be Graces also; It is a new Heresy of the Antinomians to deny a Conditional Gospel; it is all one as to bely the Holy Ghost, who saith, He that believeth shall be saved, and he that, &c]
(And how much he valued the notion of Faiths Instrumentality, and whether he judged it a proper instrument, may appear)
Pag. 114. [I see no inconvenience to say, by the Act of Faith, as a Conditi • n or Instrument, we receive and apply Christ's Righteousness; and whether ye call it a hand or • nstrument, an act of free grace, a Condition, I judge there is no reason to contend for words; so ye say not as Cornwall, Saltmarsh, and other Antinomians, We are justified whether we believe or not, and long, yea from eternity, say some, before we believe.] And that he judged Justification by Faith to be that in Law-sense, I have shown fully in my Admonition to Mr. Eyre.
66. MR. Rich. Hooker in his Discourse of Justification speaks much this way, specially endeavoring to prove that the very Papists Doctrine herein, though it overthrow the foundation by Consequence (as Ames saith every error in Divinity doth) yet not directly, and therefore that our fore-Fathers in days of Popery might be saved. Read the whole.
67. Mr. Ezek. Culverwel Treat. of Faith, concerning the nature of faith, page 13, 14. saith [Justifying faith is a belief of the Gospel whereby I Receive Christ offered to me in the same] Page 15. [God the Father moved by nothing but his free Love to mankind lost, hath made a Deed of Gift or Grant of his Son Jesus Christ unto Mankind, that whosoever of all Mankind shall receive this Gift by a true and lively faith, shall not perish, but have everlasting life] In Justifying faith there is required another and more special work, namely to Receive Christ and Life in him, offered in the Gospel. Besides the Assent of the mind and judgment to the Truth of the Gospel, we give consent with our heart and will, and so willingly and gladly Accept God's gift of Christ, whereby indeed he is become ours and we his; and so we in him be made partakers of all things pertaining to Life and Godliness.]
Page 19. [Thus then we see that the very nature of faith consisteth in the true Acceptation of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel.]
Page 152. [Thus then I conceive all Conditional Promises of the Gospel are to be taken, that God doth freely offer Mercy in what kind soever, and for the enjoying thereof requires some duty of obedience, at our hands. Now we must first believe and so Obey, and then enjoy the thing promised, &c. More out of h • m might be added.
68. Dr. Preston of Effectual faith pag. 64. [there is a double Justification: There is a Justification of the person: so was Abraham Justified by faith. But then there is a second justification, a Justification of the faith that Abraham had; he Justified his faith by his works; he shown that he had not a dead faith, &c. for he added works to his faith, his works wrought together with his faith. So that if the Question be whether Abraham was an Hypocrite? his works Justified him that he was none. If the Question be, Whether Abraham was a sinner? his faith Justifieth him, and showeth that he was made Righteous through faith. So there is a Justification of the person, and a Justification of the faith of the person. As when a man is said to justify such an Action or such a Cause, the meaning is not that he will make that Just which was unjust before, but he will make it appear to be just, &c.
HEre note that D Preston useth the old distinction of the j • st • fication of the person & cause, but the sense of it is not as if the latter also were not a Just • fication of the person too: for, as Mr. Bradshew well showeth, the person is Justified in & by the Justification of his Cause. But the meaning of • he dist • n 〈…〉 n is, that one is so universal a Justification, that the person may be said simply • o be Justified by it: The other is but a part • cular Justification, and the person is justified by it but only as to this Cau • e, and not simply and absolutely. And so when we first Believe our persons are made Just of unjust without work, b • ing freely pardoned by Christ. And when we come to Judgment, if the general charge be brought against us that we are sinners, our works are not that Righteousness that must Justify us against that charge; but pardon through Christ's satisfaction. If it be Replyed, that we are Infidels, or Rebels against the Redeemer, and therefore have no Right in that satisfaction, according to the New Covenant; our faith and repentance and sincere subjection to Christ must Justify us as our Righteousness in opposition to that par • icular Accusation: If i • be said that we are Hypocrites and did but pretend to believe, our Works may Justify our faith to be sincere. And that this is Dr. Prestons meaning, is plain in his words, when he saith Abraham's works justified him that he was no Hypocrite: so that he judged that this which he calleth Justification of the Cause, was a Justification of the man himself as to that Cause. And in our case, salvation depends much on that Cause.
IDem Treat. of fai • h page 44. 45, &c. So that if I should d • fine Justifying faith to you, it may be thus described. It is a grace or habit in • uted into t • e soul, whereby we are enabled to 〈…〉 eve, not only that the Messias is offered to us, but also to take and • eceive him as a Lord and Savior, that is, both to be saved by him, and to obey him. Mark it, I put them together, to take him as a Lord, and as a Savior. For you shall find that in the ordinary phrase of Scripture these two are put together, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior! Therefore we must take heed of disjoining those that God hath joined together; we must take Christ as well for a Lord as a Savior. Let a man do this, and he may be assured that his faith is a Justifying faith. Therefore ma • k it diligently, If a man will take Christ as a Savior only, that will not serve thy turn: Christ giveth not himself to any upon that Condition, only to save him, but we must take him as a Lord too, to be subject to him, to obey him, &c.] Page 47. [The object of this faith is Christ, as I told you before; and herein this is to be marked, that a man must first take Christ himself, and after, the Privileges that come by him. And this point I could wish were more pressed by our Divines, and that our hearers would more intend it, &c.]
Page 21. [So I say, when all these concur, the Match is now made, and you are Justified.]
Of effectual faith p. 92. Now faith is nothing but this: we come, and tell you that Christ is offered, if you will be content to let all these things go, and to turn your hearts to him; then the whole bent of a man's mind is turned the contrary way, and set upon Christ; this is such a Faith indeed, &c.] [Now if we were not mistaken in it, there would be no question of this. We think that faith is nothing but a persuasion that our sins are forgiven, a persuasion that the promises are true, and the Scripture true, a persuasion that Christ died for my sins; And thence it is that men are apt to be deceived in it. If they took faith as it is in itself, A Marriage of ourselves to Christ with all our heart and affections, when he hath given himself to us as in Marriage, and we are given to him; in doing this we should never be deceived.]
Of New Covenant, page 317, • 18. [You must know there is a twofold Covenant, One of works, Another of grace, &c. The Covenant of Grace runs in these terms [Thou shalt Believe; thou shalt take my son for thy Lord and Savior, and thou shalt likewise Receive the Gift of Righteousness, which was wrought by him for an Absolution for thy sins, for a Reconciliation with me; and thereupon thou shalt grow up in Love and Obedience towards me, Then will I be thy God, and thou shalt be my people] This is the Covenant of grace] &c.
(But I have mentioned • hese and other places of Dr. Preston formerly and referred to more, which I had rather were read in him together, then recited imperfectly by me.)
69. Mr. Scudder in his book called The Christians daily walk, p. 119. saith so punctually the same as Labor the Nature of Justifying faith, that it may rather make the Reader think that I borrowed what I say thence, then that I contradict him (though indeed I observed it not till lately,) The words are these following.
[1. Therefore do not conceive that to be faith which is no faith, nor yet that be no faith which is faith. You may know wherein true saving faith consists by this which followeth. Whereas (man being fallen into a state of Condemnation by reason of sin, thereby breaking the Covenant of works) it pleased God to ordain a new Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, establishing it in his only s • n Jesus Christ made man, expressing the full tenor of this his Covenant in the Gospel wherein he maketh a gracious and free offer of Christ, in whom this Covenant is established together with the Covenant itself, unto man; Now when a man understanding this offer, giveth credit unto it, and assenteth to it, because it is true, and approveth it, and consenteth to it, both because it is good for him to embrace it, and because it is the Will and Commandment of God, and is one Condition in the Covenant, that he should consent for his part and trust to it: when a man receiveth Christ thus offered, together with the whole Covenant in every branch of it, resolving to rest on that part of the Covenant made and promised on God's part, and to stand to every branch of the Covenant to be performed on his part, thus to embrace the Covenant of Grace and to receive Christ in whom it is confirmed, is to believe.
This offer of Christ and the receiving him by faith may clearly be expressed by an offer of peace and favor, made by a King unto a woman that is a rebellious Subject, by making offer of a marriage between her and his only Son, the heir apparent to the Crown, who to make way to this match undertakes by his fathers appointment to make full satisfaction to his fathers Justice in her behalf, and to make her every way fit to be a daughter to a King. And for the effecting this match between them, the Son with the consent and appointment of his Father, sendeth his chief servants a wooing to this unworthy woman, making offer of marriage in their masters behalf, with the clearest proofs of their masters good will to her, and with the greatest earnestness and entreaties to obtain her good will that may be; this woman being at first a Ward or bondwoman unto this Kings Sons mortal enemy, and being in love with base slaves like herself, companions in her rebellion, may happily set light by this offer: or if she consider well of it, she may doubt of the truth of this offer: the match being so unequal and so unlikely on her part, she being so base and so unworthy, may think the motion to be too good to be true: yet if upon more advised thoughts, she doth see and believe that there is such a one as the Kings Son, and believeth that he is in earnest and would match with her: and considereth also that it shall be good for her to forsake all others and take him; now when she can bring herself to believe this, though she cometh to it with much difficulty, and when withal she giveth a true and hearty consent to have him, and to forsake all others and to take him as he is, to obey him as her Lord, and to take part with him in all Conditions better or worse, though she come to this resolution with much ado, then the match is as good as made between them; for hereupon followeth the mutual plighting of their troaths each to other. The application is easy throughout. I will only apply so much as is for my purpose to show the nature of Justifying Faith. God offers his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, yea Christ Jesus by his Ministers offers himself in the Gospel unto rebellious man to match with him, only on this Condition, that forsaking his kindred and Fathers house, forsaking all that he is in himself he will receive him as his head, husband, Lord and Savior; now when any man understandeth this mo • ion so far as to assent and consent unto it, and to receive Christ and cleave to him; then he believeth to salvation: then the match is made between Christ and that man, then they are hand-fasted and betrothed, nay married, and are no longer two, bu • are become one Spirit. By all this you may see that in saving Faith there are two Acts. 1. An assent to the Truth of the Gospel, and that not only in general believing that there is a Christ, believing also what manner of person he is, and upon what condition he offereth himself to man to save him: but also believing that this Christ graciously offereth his love and himself to a man's self in particular. The second act is an approbation and liking well of this offer of Christ, with consenting and hearty saying I to the said offer, resolving to take him wholly and fully as he is, accepting of him according to the full tenor of the marriage-Covenant, not only as a man's Savior for to defend and shelter him from evil, and to save him and bring him to glory; but as his head, to be ruled by him as his Lord and King, to worship and obey him; believing in him not only as his Priest to satisfy for him, but also as his Prophet to teach, and as his King to Govern him; cleaving to him in all estates, taking part with him in all the evils that accompany the profession of Christ's name, as well as in the good; the first act is not enough to save any; the second act cannot be without the former; where both these are, there is a right receiving of the Gospel, there is true Faith; the principal matter lieth in the consent and determination of the Will in receiving of Christ; which that it may be without exception, know with what manner of will you must consent and receive Christ.] So far Mr. Scudder. Read him farther on in that place.
70. DR. Sam. Bolton, Bounds of Christian freedom, pag. 278, 279, 280, 285. [1. Though Christ have purchased all Good things for us, yet will God bestow them in a way of seeking, Ezek. 36. 37. 2. Though God will bestow these things in a way of believing and praying, yet they are not the purchase of our prayers, but the gift of his own mercy. And I appeal to any, whether ever they heard any conscientious Minister say, that praying was the Meriting Cause of any Mercy? Did ever any say that duty had any causal influence into the compassing of mercy? Hath it not still been held up as a subservient means? &c.] Obj. But it may be it will be said, If these things are freely promised, why is there then a Condition required to the bestowing of them? Answ. 1. Some say, that though God's Promises are free in fieri, in respect of the making of them, yet they are Conditional in facto esse, in respect of the performance of them; though they are made out of mere mercy, yet they are performed in relation to our subservient duty. And if we do but subjoin this to it, that the subservient Condition or duty which is pre-required to the performance of the Promise, is nothing of our bringing, but first of God's bestowing, I do not se how this may any way intrench upon the freeness of God's grace, either in making or in performing the Promise; Rev. 21. 6. He tells us he will give to him that is a thirst. Here is a Condition or Qualification; and yet this doth not intrench on the freeness of grace. Notwithstanding this qualification, he tells us, he gives to him that is a thirst: and what can be freer then gift?]
Obj. But it may be it will be said, that can be no precedent Condition to Grace and Justification, which is a subsequent fruit of grace and Justification; but to perform duty acceptably, is a subsequent fruit of our Justification; therefore, &c. (See further.)
I shall propound a few things to be seriously and thoroughly considered on. 1. Whether these things laid down may not be both precedent Conditions, and also subsequent fruits of grace: Especially if you look on them as Conditions of God's bestowing, &c.]
And pag. 289. he speaks of the several periods of • ustification, thus [As 1. we may be said to be Justified in Decree, &c. 2. Meritoriously, in the death of Christ. 3. Actually, and so we are justified when we come to believe. 4. In the Court of conscience, when we come to be Assured. 5. Perfectly; and so we are Justified when we are glorified, when Christ shall present his Spouse without either spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, when the Church shall be all fair without spot or sin—if which be not admitted, the order of Scripture will seem to be inverted, and we shall run from God's revealed Will, to God's secret Will, yea, and a man may stand actually justified by this opinion, while he stands actually under the power, reign, and rage of Satan and sin.
(Read further his excellent discourse, to prove that we may and must make Heaven our end in our duties; and consequently that duties are means to that end, and therefore the sincere performance of them can be no less then a mere Condition sine qu • non.
71. MR. Arthur Dent, in his Catechism defines Justification to be [A cleansing and Renewing of our nature by the Spirit of God.]
This must needs comprehend Sanctification in it. I cite it not as Justifying it, but to show that he saith more then I do, in the point in hand.
72. MR. Sam. Crook, Guide to Blessedness, pag. 201. [2. (The Elect) being in Christ, they and their Works shall not undergo the strict Trial of the Law simply in itself, but as the obedience thereof proveth them to be true partakers of the grace of the Gospel] (This is the subservient Justification by Works at judgment which I assert.) So pag. 202. [The Elect shall be pronounced just▪ Because their Good works, though Imperfect, do approve their Faith, whereby they lay hold on Christ and his meritorious righteousness, to be a true Faith, as working by love, in all parts of obedience.] (We are justified then, Because of the Attestation of wor s.)
73. RAvanellus in his Bibli • thec. in verbo [Remissio saith, that [The Instrumental Cause of Remission is manifold. 1. Generally, all Godly men, who by the example of a holy life, and by holy Admonition • do turn sinners from an ill way, and consequently obtain them pardon of sin, I am. 5. 20. (Then turning itself must be as much a Cause ) 2. Specially, Pastors who Preach the • ospel-Doctrine of Remission of sins▪ Mat. 16. 19. and 8. 18. in which places Pastors are said to forgive sins, not by their own authority▪ which is God's prerogative, but as they are God's Ministers▪ and Preachers of the word or Gospel. See to this sense▪ Luk. 1. 76, 77. and 24. 47. Act. 13. 38. and 26. 18. And so the Preaching of the • ospel, Rom. 1. 16. 3. The Sacraments, that is, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, &c. 4. Faith by which we receive Remission of sins, offered us in the preaching of the Gospel. 5. Prayers▪ both our own and others for us; specially the prayers of the Ministers of the Church.] See him also in verbo [Resipiscentia. ]
(Here is more said then ever I did, in that he maketh them no less then causes.)
74. CHristoph. Pezelius in Genes. 4. pag. 92, 93▪ saith, [ If thou art good, or if thou doest well, thou shalt have deliverance, or Remission, or Acceptation, that is, of thy person, and of thy sacrifice, that is, Thou and thy worship shall be Accepted with God. For Acceptation is opposed to Rejection; and by the name of goodness or well-doing, is meant our whole conversation, or whole Christian life, which consisteth in daily Confession of sin, and in Faith and a good conscience. For in sayings about good Works, we must ever comprehend Faith, without which, neither the person nor the Works please God.] • id. ultr.
75. BUcanus Loc. Com. Loc. 38▪ §. 10. pag. 430. [Of what things shall we be judged? Answ. Of every ones faith and infidelity by the effects of each.]
Pag. 431. Come ye blessed▪ &c. To which he will subjoin a mention of the cause, from the fruits of Faith arguing that cause, that is from the Works of mercy, &c.]
Pag. 432. [According to what Law will Christ pass the Sentence? Answ. Though the Godly shall be Absolved even by the voice of the Law, in as much as Christ hath fulfilled it for them; and by the same Law which threateneth damnation to every sin, shall the wicked be damned; Yet not so much the voice of the Law, as of the Gospel which the Apostles preached, shall be the Rule of the last Judgment: according to that Joh. 3▪ 36. & 12. 48. Rom. 2. 16. For the Sentence at that universal Judgment will be no other thing then the manifestation or declaration of the Sentence already pronounced in this Life by the Ministry of the word, of the Justification and condemnat • on of particular persons.] (Note here, that if it be specially the Gospel that men shall be judged by as the Rule, and it be men's Works and Faith that is to be inquired after (though one were only in subordination to the other) it must needs follow that he that hath Faith and Works, will be justified by them at that Judgment, against the charge of Infidelity and Rebellion. And the Gospel Conditions must needs be the matter of the Judgment, if the Gospel be the Rule of it. And therefore he that now hath the Gospel conditions of salvation, shall then be Judged to salvation on that account, (for the Merits and free gift of Christ as the ground:) And to • udge then to salvation is to Iustifie: And our Divines commonly confess that sincere Obedience, Repentance, Love, are Gospel conditions of salvation: therefore when men are judged by the Gospel, and it is inquired who hath these Gospel conditions, so far will they be the very matter of men's Righteousness to Justification.
76. MR. Pinke in his excellent Serm. of sincere Love to Christ, on Luk. 14. 26. p. 14. &c. Math. 10. 37. He that loveth Father or Mother more then me, is not worthy of me; Alas, you will say, No more is he that loveth him infinitely better then his Father and Mother; Yes, such a one is worthy of him; Not indeed, with such a worthiness as God may Expect, but with such a worthiness as he in Justice may Accept: not with such a worthiness by which he may deserve Christ, for then he would have no need of him, seeing that worthiness might as well immediately answer the Justice of God without Christ: but with such a worthiness as may fit him, having need of Christ, and Christ being freely given him, to receive him. What kind of worthiness is that? It is the worthiness of Faith Working by love, consisting in a through sense of the extreme misery of our greatest happiness without Christ, in a clear persuasion of the incomparable worth of those things which we are promised in Christ, and in a well-advised Resolution to do or suffer anything, that we may be assured of our part in them. But alas what worthiness is there in all this? seeing that whatsoever we can possibly do or suffer for Christ in this life, is not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed. I answer, there can be indeed no meritorious worthiness, in all this: but there is an Acceptable worthiness: for by acceptance he is worthy of whatsoever God doth for him, who in some good measure understands the worth of his benefits, and takes them to heart, desiring and endeavoring to give him all the glory which he intended for himself in bestowing them. The principal thing God intends in doing good to any of his Creatures is the glory of his Goodness; If therefore his Creature acknowledge his goodness proportionably in his benefits, desiring to value them all single at that high price, and in comparison one above another proportionably as the Donor would have he should, he restores to God that which he aimed at in his benefits, and is worthy of them with that worthiness which a Creator may expect from a Creature; Seeing an infinite Creator which had need of nothing, cannot expect anything from a finite creature, having nothing but what he first bestowed upon it, but the Glory of his benefits.
Now the greatest matter, containing in it infinite variety of wonders, which God from all eternity hath contrived, &c. to get himself an infinite mass of glory, was the sending his own Son, &c, This being so, whosoever is admitted to see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, if he be so caught up with admiration of it, that he grow presently into a loathing of all his other happiness in comparison of this; if at the sighe of such a Concourse of wonders, he be so rav • shed out of himself, that he care not what become of what he most doted on before, so that he may get his part in that fellowship; I say, such a one is worthy of Christ, because he gives God that glory which Christ meant to procure him; and therefore it will stand both with his Wisdom and Justice to allot such a one his portion out of those unsearchable riches of Christ.]
(Read one leaf more in the Author, well worth the perusing. Here is another Reason given of our Interest in Christ, then the Instrumentality of an act; and another kind of Faith described, then what consisteth but in one act, or excludeth Love, Resolution, contempt of the world, &c.
77. DR. Jackson (whom I have never heard excepted against in this point, though in some other) of saving Faith. Sect. 2. cap. 6. pag. 206, 207. [Saint Paul as is declared at large before) includes Works in Faith, which Saint James takes as he found it in unfruitful hearers destitute of good Works,] If by the Kingdom of heaven ( Math. 5. 19, 20.) be meant the Kingdom of Grace, the Argument is more strong then otherwise it would be: howsoever strong it is, and not impeached by this reply, That such observance of the Commandments as is here required, is necessary to sanctification or salvation, not to Justification. That it should be more necessary to one of these then to another, implies a contradiction in the terms well expressed and equally compared, as it doth to our Savior's purpose to say, that Works are less necessary before Justification then after it. A man in that he is justified, is the immediate heir of salvation, at least acquitted from the sentence of death: Now if we affirm such righteousness more necessary after he is justified then before, we shall in Congruity grant that Works win heaven, and Faith only delivers from hell.] &c.
Or if Faith without Works obtain Justification, having Justified us, shall it not much more without them lay sure hold on salvation, &c. Suppose a man die in the very instant wherein he is Justified? None would doubt of absolution or salvation. Is he then saved with works or without them? If without them, our Savior's Rule doth fail us, &c. If with them, their presence is necessary to Justification, and in order of nature before it, because necessary ere he can be capable of entering into the Kingdom of heaven, as performance of every Condition is in nature precedent to the accomplishment of what is not promised without it. Again, no man denies but Faith inherent in order of nature goes before Justification in that sense we take it, yet Justifying Faith necessarily includes such Works in it as James requires, at least a preparation or immediate promptness of mind to do them; and more then so was not in the work of Abraham, which he commends &c.] Pag. 210. More Arguments I need not use▪ for every observant Reader may furnish himself with plenty, all Demonstrative that Works taken as James meant, no • for the act or operation only, but either for the act or promptitude to it, are necessary to Justification (not before men, but before God) and in order of nature precedent.]
The infallible consequence of these deductions is, that between St. Paul's faith, and St. James 's Justification, there must be Works intermediate; of what kind it skills not, so they be done in Faith.] (See next the order of Works.) [If we then compare the acts or operations of Faith among themselves, according to the same strength or equal degrees of fidelity in doing God's will, the effectual application of Christ's Merits is but a branch of the former uniformity in working required by St. James; neither necessarily, nor ordinarily the first, either in order of nature or time, whether we speak of application actual and express, or of implicit and potential,] &c.
Pag. 215. Now if by such works as the heathens or Auditors of the Law not yet sanctified, often practiced, much more by those works which accompany true and lively Faith, we may in a higher degree of the same sense, be accounted justified; that is, Approveable in the sight of God, or Passively capable of a final Absolution, or effectual Justification. And this was all Saint James meant in that Assertion. [Ye see then how that a man of works is justified and not of faith only;] which words are but equivalent to the like precedent, verse. 14. [What availeth it, &c. can Faith save him?] The conclusion intended in both places, as in that whole discourse, was no more but thus: No man may presume he is already in the state of Justification or salvation, unless he find himself impartially devoted to good works of every kind.]
Pag. 216 [Did St. Paul then ever affirm that a man could be saved or justified without such works? No: he always supposed them as a qualification most necessary in the party which expected final Absolution, or benefit of God general pardon.]
Pag. 217. [The seeming Contradiction between these two great Apostles is hence easily and clearly thus dissolved S. James affirming we are justified by works, and not by Faith alone, speaks of the Passive qualification in the subject or party, to be justified or made capable of Absolute approbation or final Absolution: This Qualification supposed, Saint Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence, or of the ground of our plea for Absolution.]
78. Zwingli takes Faith, Hope and Love to be all one, and therefore must needs hold that hope and Love Iustifie as well as Faith. Tom. 2. de vera & falsa Relig. fol. 224. [For he that hath faith, God is in him, and he in God. But let any say, This belongs to charity which you ascribe to faith: It must be considered, that faith is diversely taken in the holy Scriptures: first for Credulity: then for Firmness: and then for Affiance on God; and of this alone it must be understood that faith saveth. And now they that understand not that Faith, Hope and Charity are the same thing, to wit, this Affiance in God, shall be constratined to let many knots in Scripture pass unresolved. And this shall be made manifest by Scriptures. We are saved by Hope, Rom 8. and Rom. 4. Faith is imputed to a Believer to Righteousness. If therefore Hope save, and Faith save, Faith and Hope must be the same thing. Nor let it move any man, that sometime Hope is otherwise spoken of then Faith; For there Faith is not taken for Affiance in God; but either for any Credulity or Firmness, or Truth. So charity, &c.]
Pag. 225. [Moreover, all that Affiance of man's heart on God, is sometime called Faith, sometime Hope and Charity; and whether you Love, Hope, or Trust, it is nothing else but Piety towards God. Hence it is that though Piety alone comprehend these three, Faith is taken for Charity, and Hope for Faith.] (He here answers the objection, that the Apostle distinguisheth them)
And in his Apolog. against Luther, Tom. 2. pag. 370. [And this (Faith) is nothing else then that Constitution of man's mind, by which we commit ourselves wholly to God. For in this manner, and upon these Conditions hath the Almighty God entered Covenant with all the company and number of the faithful, that they adore him alone, worship him alone, and adhere to him alone as the only God, &c. And this Covenant can in no wise be changed, &c. whence it is manifest also that that Faith, whereby we trust in Jesus Christ our Lord, is properly conversant about his Divinity, and is built on it, and resteth on it]
And Fidei Christian. Expos. Tom. 2. pag. 557. he saith, That faith and works are but as Consilium & factum, Consultation and Action.
79. I Will draw towards the end as I began, with those Testimonies that have many in one. Those Divines of the late Assembly at Westminster, that wrote the Annotations on the Bible, say thus on Isa. 1. 16. [If the foulness of your hands be that which hinders the Acceptance of your services, and the success of your suites, then must you wash and cleanse them, ere you can hope to have gracious Acceptance of the one, or effectual audience for the other. verse. 18. A gracious invitation with offer and promise of Reconcilement, Remission of forepast transgressions, and restitution of former blessings and benefits, upon such Reformation as was before here required] See them more fully on Isa. 55. 1. on the word [Buy]▪ and on verse. 3 [On Mark. 7. 29. [For this saying] For so excellent a Faith, so admirably expressing itself in confidence and humility: all which importeth not her Merit, but his mercy, crowning his own graces in her.]
80. THe last Testimony of the eighty shall be of that most Learned, Judicious, Orthodox Synod of Dort: and in particular of our own British Divines in their suffrage Ad Art. 5. part. 2. page 198. ( Impres. 1620.) Th 2. [Because Sanctification the compan • on of Justification consisteth not without a Purpose of obedience, which habitual Purpose though interrupted by many falls, is sufficient to the Elect, to the keeping of the state of Justification safe in itself: but to the present comfort of Affiance, there is necessarily required such an Actual Purpose.]
(Here the keeping safe or continuing our state of Justification is ascribed to Sanctification or an habitual Purpose of obedience: which can be in no sense below that of a Condition that I know of)
So Thes. 3 & 4, 5. page 192, 193, 194. [The same Regenerate and Justified Persons do sometime by their own fault fall into heinous sins, and hereby incur the paternal Indignation of God, contract a damnable guilt, lose their present aptitude to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, &c. They contract a damnable guilt, so that while they persist in that state without Repentance, they neither ought nor can otherwise persuade themselves then that they are obnoxious to death. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For they are bound under a Capital Crime, by whose defect they are liable to Death according to God's Ordination, though they be not yet delivered to Death, nor shall be if we respect God's fatherly love; but shall be first r • scued from this sin, that so they may be rescued from the Guilt of Death. Lastly, in their present condition they lose their aptitude to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; because nothing shall enter into that Kingdom that defileth or worketh abomination. For the heavenly Crown is put only on them who have fought a good fight, and have finished their Course in faith and holiness. He is therefore unfit to possess this Crown who yet sticketh in the works of Impiety.
Thes. 4. God's unchanged Ordination requireth, that a believer thus exorbitant, shall first return into the way by a renewed act of Faith and Repentance, before he can be brought to the end of the way, that is the Kingdom of heaven—If therefore any one go on in a way contrary to God's ordination, as that broad way of uncleanness and impenitency, which leadeth strait to hell, he can never in that manner come to heaven. Yea if death shall take him wandering in that wrong way, he cannot but fall into eternal death. This is the perpetual and clear voice of Scripture, Luke 13. 3. 1 Cor. 6. 9. They are vain therefore that imagine that an elect man wallowing in such crimes, and so dying, shall yet be saved by force of Election. For the salvation is indeed certain and firm on God's Decree: but by the same Decree of God, it is certain only by the way of Faith, Repentance and Holiness. Heb. 12. 14. 2 Tim. 2 19.—If any of these be wanting and the contrary be in an Elect man, there seems on both parts to stand a certain Impossibility; For Example, It is impossible that Paul an Elect man perish: It is impossible also that Paul a Blasphemer against Christ and an unbeliever, should not perish, if he die in that state. Or it is impossible that David an Elect man perish: It is impossible but that David an Adulterer and murderer should perish, if death find him impenitent. But God's providence and mercy easily looseth this knot, by seeing that no Elect man die in that state, in which he should be shut out of heaven according to any Ordination of God's will.]
Thes. 5. In the space between the contracting of guilt by grievous sin, and the renewed act of Faith and Repentance, such a sinner standeth by his own Merit to be damned, but by Christ's merits and God's firm purpose, to be Absolved: but not actually Absolved, before by excited Faith and Repentance, he have obtained pardon.]
Of the Merit of damnation for such a sin, there can be no question, Gal. 5. 21. Yet under such Guilt, the Condition of Believers and wicked men is not the same. To Believers the blood of Christ is like an Antidote prepared, and set close by, which as their Faith awaketh, they may use for the overcoming of this deadly poison. But to unbelievers, there is wanting this internal Principle, to wit, Faith, without which the Remedy is, as it were, set far of, and cannot be made their own, and actually applied.—Hence God hath appointed this order, that the Acts of Repentance shall go before the benefit of Pardon. Psal. 32. 3. I made known to thee my sin, and hid not my unrighteousness; I said I will confess to the Lord my unrighteousness, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. And Ezek. 18. 27. When the wicked turneth from his wickedness, which he wrought, he shall make alive his own soul. If therefore any would know the very moment in which a man is actually absolved from the guilt contracted by grieveous sin; Cyprian seems to show it clearly in these words: When I see thee sighing before God, I doubt not but the Spirit of God is breathing on thee (or helping): when I see thee weeping, I perceive him pardoning] The like Doctrine of the Synod; see Act. de Art. 5. Th. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
(In all this it appeareth that they take holiness and sincere obedience as an absolutely necessary Condition of continuing or not losing our state of Justification and Salvation. And that as great sins do actually bring guilt of death, and make uncapable of salvation till we return by Repentance, so if God should permit us totally to fall from Sanctification, we should thereby fall also from our state of Justification and salvation; and that as God hath decreed that we shall not fall from justification, so hath he De • reed our not falling from sanctification as the means thereof, and the keeping our state of Justification.
AND thus I have given you a cloud of witnesses to clear the main points that some are offended at in my writings, from the charge of singularity, that so men's prejudice, if possible, may be removed; I will yet add some more, though beyond my first intent, and though some of them speak not so directly to the point as may be expected.
1. FEstus Homius Dispute. Theol. 68. pag. 418. (Edit. 3.) [Prayers lawfully conceived by the Faithful in the name of Christ are very acceptable to God, and have great efficacy of obtaining many and excellent benefits of God, both to ourselves and others: and they are the ordinary means, by which we obtain of God, all benefits Spiritual and Corporal.]
If All, then Justification, at least the continuance of it, and of our Right to salvation, as also our renewed pardon of particular sins, and Justification from them, and final Justification at Judgment▪ Note also that he gives [a great efficacy] to Prayer herein: which is more then ever I said of any act of man.
2. POlanus Syntag. l. 6. c. 37. p. 469. [The ends of Repentance are 1. That we may obtain the aversion, or at least the mitigation of deserved Punishments.]—[The effects of Repentance. 1. The hearing of our Prayers, and the obtaining the good things which we seek of God. (Of which Pardon is one.) 2. The escaping of eternal death, as God saith Ezek. 33. 14, 15, 16,
(These are made the effect, and so Repentance a cause of them, when I made it but a Condition.)
So cap 6. li. 8. pag. 564 [The effects of good Works are; 1. The glorification of God. 2. Innumerable good things which return both to him that ha • h good Works and others. To him that hath good Works, return these most desirable fruits; to wit, most intimate and familiar communication of God's good will; the confirmation of Election, Vocation, Justification, Sanctification and Adoption: The increase of righteousness and holiness inherent in us; All kind of blessings and happy success.] (All these are made no less then the effects of good Works)
Lib. 6. cap. 69. [The passing of Sentence is, that whereby Christ will Judge to all their Right, and give them according to their Works, which also witness every ones Faith or Infidelity. All shall be judged, either according to the Gospel, or the Law. They who have received the Gospel, shall be judged according to it, and by it—The Gospel requireth that we Believe in Christ, that through him all our sins are pardoned, and it witnesseth, that our begun Obedience, though maimed and very imperfect, is as Acceptable to God as if it were most perfect: because Christ's righteousness and obedience i • ours. The Elect therefore, though their Works are imperfect, yet therefore cannot be condemned, because there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
3. ROd. Gualtherus in Luc. Homil. 99. fol. 246. saith as much as I for Repentance and Confession, too long to transcribe: he saith, [Contrition of mind causeth confession of sin, which is made to God privately and secretly, yea or Publikely, if the necessity of the thing, or the glory of God require it. For seeing they that truly Repent, are wont to fly to God's mercy, and to deprecate their fault and God's anger; this cannot be done without Confession of sin And unless this be done, we can neither have peace in our own minds nor obtain the Pardon of sin. ] And he tells us what kind of men in those days preached free grace only, and not Repentance [therefore those dumb dogs do nothing who being intent only on the preaching of grace, do wholly neglect the Doctrine of Repentance.] Which makes me remember the practice of old carnal daubing temporizers in England, who preached all mercy and Christ's sufferings, but little of the nature and necessity of holiness, and strict obedience: And how the multitude of the ungodly hearers liked them, and the Godly disliked them for this very thing, which now grows in fashion.
4. BUllinger is as strict as any of our Divines against Justification by Works: and yet when he comes to some particular Dutyes, he gives more to them then ever I did; For example, Prayer for pardon of sin and other mercies, he affirms not only profitable and necessary, but even efficacious; and affirms and labors to prove that they move God, and speaks against them that deny it. See him hereof, Decad. 5. Serm. 5. pag. ( mihi) 394. Et Comp • nd. Christian. Relig. pag ( mihi ) 98. li. 7. Et de Origin Erroris, lib. 1 pag. 60.
5. SCharpius is most zealous against Justification by Works; and yet affirmeth that they are means▪ and Conditio sine qua non, that they must be done as the way to salvation, and to escape eternal punishment; and that God pardon • h not without Repentance, and that pardon and • ods favor are effects of Repentance. See Curs. Theolog. Contr. 11. p. 954, 956, 958. Con. 14. p. 986. de Poenit. p. 1043. Et Symphon. p. 403.
6. CHytraeus in Num. 5 pag. 41, 42. saith, [This Law is a clear cofirmation of the Rule▪ The sin is not forgiven, unless that which is taken away be restored] For though it be true that sin is pardoned freely, that is, without our compensation and Merit; yet is it necessary that in true Repentance the Purpose of sinning be laid aside, and of retaining against conscience other men's goods▪ As Isaiah saith, Cease to do evil. This Restitution is not Canonical satisfaction, &c. but part of Contrition or New Obedience.] And c. 21. p. 212. he makes that Faith which is the Instrument of receiving Christ, and by which God giveth us Righteousness, to be an Acknowledgment of Christ's person, satisfaction, and benefits, and an embracing of the whole Doctrine of Christ with firm assent; and a Resolution not to forsake our confidence by any doubts, diffidence, vicious inclinations of nature, rage of Tyrants or death itself.]
And cap. 11. pag. 91, 92. he maintaineth that the truly Reconciled to God and Saints may lose God's grace and Spirit, and Faith, and that some have done so, and been reconciled again, and others died in impenitency and perished.] This is more for the necessity of Obedience, to the continuance of Justification, then I ever said or believed: The like may be said of Luther, Melancthon, and all the Princes and Divines that joined in the first famous Confession of the Protestants (the Augustine ); which asserteth the losing of the Spirit and grace: and all those Churches and Divines (the Lutherans ) who still own that Confession and Doctrine, and Musculus who is of the same mind: All these, while they maintain that Justification is lost by disobedience, and gross sin, must needs hold that Obedience is a Condition of not losing our Justification. So that there are many Nations of Protestants join in this one Testimony: As also do all ours of the contrary opinion, while they confess that▪ If we should lose our holiness and true Obedience, we should lose our Justification.
7. ALthamar. Conciliat. Loc. Script. Loc. 101. fol. 97▪ expoundeth Luk. 10. [Do this and thou shalt live ] of Loving God with all the heart, being intent on him, trusting him, depending on him, obeying his Government, hoping in him, and not in our own Righteousness, doing good to the needy: And saith, this is not Justification by Works, but the same as Hab. 2. The just shall live by Faith. See him also, fol. 109. 147. 204. 105. 154.
8. PEllicanus on 1 Joh. 1. 9. If after the receiving of Baptism and Repentance, you happen to slip into any fault through human infirmity, &c. If one brother happen to wrong another, let one forgive another, that God in like manner may forgive what is done against him. For on this Condition hath God promised that he will forgive us whatever we do against him, if we forgive the offense of our brother. For the Lord will exact his Debt to the utmost farthing, of him who having tried the mercy of his Lord, behaveth himself unmercifully to his fellow servant; as judging him unworthy of the mercy of God, to whom he once pardoned all his sins, and he refuseth to forgive a light offense, to him whom himself doth daily offend or may offend. And as it is most hard for men not to offend, so it is most easy to heal such offenses by mutual pardon: Do thou forgive thy neighbor, and let thy neighbor also forgive thee; and God as of Covenant will forgive you both. I speak of such errors as befall the Good, being but men, and which rather darken then extinguish the light of Evangelical Truth.—And nothing more inviteth the mercy of God, and mitigateth his wrath▪ then if a man confess his sin to God. If a fierce man will forgive him that confesseth his fault, how much more will God do it, who is more merciful then man? For he is prone to mercy, and he promiseth us pardon on this Condition▪ Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you Only do thou perform the Condition prescribed, and he will not forget his Covenant. If we from our hearts forgive our neighbor who offendeth us▪ God in like manner will forgive us, not only one or two faults, but all our sins, so be it we strive according to our power, that at last we may be free from all Vices.
And on c. 2. p. 165. [He disowns all them in whom he seeth not Evangelical Righteousness, which is of faith, and is not barren▪ but fruitful in works of Charity: But if you are persuaded that God is the Author of this Righteousness, know this also, that whoever not in mere profession▪ but in his desires, deeds, and manners, performeth Evangelical Righteousness, is born of God: to whom, being conscious of (this) good in himself (or having a good conscience) he may come with that confidence, as obedient children are wont to a gracious father: Those that are like him he will own: the unlike he will disown.
And on I am. 2. p. 696, 697. [By his deeds he deserved the praise of Righteousness: but by such as came from faith.—But if Abraham should have Lost the fruit of faith, and the praise of Righteousness, if he had thought much at God's command to have sacrificed his Son: shall his faith p • ofit him, who thinks much at God's command to bestow a garment on his neighbor that starveth? or to give meat to the hungry, drink to the thirsty▪ &c.——Of such force with God is mercy and bounty to our neighbor, that a woman, that a Harlot, that a stranger commended by a work of hospitality, deserved to be annumerated in the Catalogue of the Godly &c.—and she deserved the praise of Righteousness in God's books, not of faith only, because she was persuaded that God being the Rewarder, no ones good deeds should be lost to him, specially which was given to the good▪ or at least with respect to God but from hence in that despising the danger of her own life, she looked to the life of the Spies]
On Heb. 13. p. 679▪ [With such sacrifices God is appeased to us ( placidus nobis fit Deus. )
9. GEllius Snecanus Method. Loc. Com. pag. 25 [For the Gospel to promise eternal life freely▪ and yet to require Faith and Repentance, are not contradictory. For these are not required as a merit of Justice, or of Remission of sin, and acceptation to salvation; but as the Correlative of the Promise; faith and good Works are not the Impulsive cause, or Price, or debt, by whose dignity we should Merit eternal life, but they are as the adjuncts or proper effects of faith. The Conditional form of speech therefore [If thou believe] denoteth not the cause▪ but the manner in which Christ's Merit is applied▪—For though the Gospel have annexed its own Condition of Faith, Repentance and a New Life, (for these are not excluded by faith, but ra • her included) yet it excludeth the Condition of our Dignity and Merit and transferreth the cause of Remission of sin, and salvation from us to the benefit of Christ.
So pag 133. and frequently, he makes Piety▪ Performance▪ &c. Conditions of the Promise: and perseverance in sin, &c. conditions of the Threatning, indeed going further then I will follow him.
10. GEorg. Sohnius Exeges. Confes. August. saith as much against all the Arguments brought for Justi • ication by Works, as most ever did, yet saith, Artic. 4. de Iustif. p 896. [Rev. 22. 11. He that is just, let him be justified still, &c. Answ. John speaks here of free Justification, that is, Remission of sin; and he will have that to be continued and continually done in this life: For though Remission of sin be fully and perfectly done as oft as it is done; yet because sin dwelling in our flesh, doth daily incite us to offend, we have every day need of Justification and Remission of sin. Whence it is that the holiest men have need according to Christ's prescript, every day, yea every hour and moment to beg Remission of sins. As therefore they whose sins are forgiven, do daily pray, Forgive us our trespasses; so he that is Justified, is Justified still (or further justified): The sense therefore of this place is, [He that is freely justified by Faith in Christ, let him be yet (or further) justified, in avoiding sins, by constant maintaining (or keeping) that Justification which he hath once attained: Or if he sin, (as the holiest often sin) by seeking again the pardon and Remission of sins.]
Here he asserteth 1. A need of daily Justification from the guilt of daily sins. 2. That we keep and continue our Justification, 1. By avoiding sin, that is▪ by Obedience. 2. By begging pardon when we do sin: and thus he that is justified must be justified still (Though others think the text Rev. 22. speaks of Inherent Righteousness.)
Pag. 907. Good Works are not excluded from Justification, so as not to be present or to follow when men are justified: but Only from the cause of Justification, that is, There is excluded only the opinion of Merit, or the Condition of the worthiness of Works, but not the Necessity and Duty of doing well.—
Pag. 908. Salvation is promised both For Patience, and For Afflictions, and other good Works; and yet not by these, but by Faith do we take the Promise of Grace and Salvation.—
Pag. 914. It may be understood of the Inchoate Righteousness of the Faithful, to wit, that Righteousness in us doth Iustifie, but only Inchoately; and that Love is our Righteousness, but Inchoately.—
Pag. 904. Many things are required, but in the same manner and respect. For Faith is required as the Instrument and means of apprehension and application of Christ's Righteousness: Contrition as an Antecedent necessarily conjoined by Divine Ordination.—
Pag. 873. Let it be so that the Apostle speaks of good Works, yet not the cause (of Justification) but the Condition is noted, &c. vid. reliq. —
He oft confesseth that Salvation is our due upon the Justice of God's promise, though not of Merit: and pag. 923. that the Fathers use the word Justification for making us inherently righteous: See what he saith pag. 926, 927, 928. of the Fathers use of the words Merit and Satisfying▪]—
11. IOh. Spangenbergius Margarit Theol [Justification comprehendeth three Members, Remission of sin, Acceptation to Life Eternal, and the giving of the Holy Ghost. pag. 18.] And p. 21. 23. What doth the word freely exclude? It excludeth not Repentance or Contrition and good Works; but it excludeth the Condition of our own worthiness, and transferreth the cause of the benefit (of Pardon and the gift of Life Eternal▪ on mercy alone.] fol. 14. He makes [those that commit mortal sins, as Fornication, Theft, Drunkenness, &c. to fall from grace, and to cease to be Reputed Righteous]—Pag. 25. Good Works deserve Rewards Corporal and Spiritual.
12. Illiricus himself (the Father of the • laccians that raised such tumults against Melancthon and others in the point of good Works) doth make a twofold Bar of God's judgment: one of strict Justice, the other of Grace▪ Accordingly he asserteth a twofold Justification: At the Bar of strict Justice we are justified only by Remission of sin on the Imputation of Christ's righteousness received by faith: At the Bar of grace we are Justified and Accepted in respect to our new Obedience. It is a Justification of New Obedience, and a Rewarding of it, by God a Reconciled Father at the Bar of Grace.] See Clav. Scrip • ur. Tract. 6 de Varia Operum praedicat. pag 562▪ 563, 564, 565. And how much is this less then that which I affirm of a twofold Righteousness, and Justification?
13. BRochmond (another addicted to the extreme in this point) though he speaks against Works Justifying before God in general, yet when he comes to particulars, he gives more to them then I have done. On Jam. 5. 15. he mentions two effects of Prayer: whereof the first is to save the sick: which though God do as the Principal Cause, yet Prayer as a means to excite or awake God; The second effect of Prayer is the forgiveness of sin, which is the cause of sickness.]
I never said that pardon was an effect of any Act of ours.
So on verse. 17, 18. [Let us be continual in Prayers, moved by their efficacy, which indeed is admirable, as appears not only by the example of Elias, but &c. And which is the greatest of all, so great is the force and virtue of Prayer, that it cannot only Appease God himself when he is kindled to anger, but even overcome him.] And on verse. 19, 20▪ he saith that he that by Preaching Repentance converteth a sinner, • ffecteth that his si • s be covered, pardoned and not imputed.
And on c. 2. sect. 21 he confuteth Piscator and Pareus and all that by Works understand James to mean a working Faith. 1. Because he thinks it contradicteth Paul, and takes not down Works sufficiently. 2. Because no place of Scripture can be produced in which the name of Works signifieth a faith Actuous and Conspicuou • by Works. And we may not urge such a sense of words which have no footsteps anywhere in Scripture. 3. Because the whole context doth strongly contradict this exposition, putting Faith and Works as contradistinct; was the offering of Isaac, Faith Conspicuous by Works?—
And is exposition (that it is only before men that Faith justifieth) is confuted by our Divines, and contradicted by the Text, which mentioneth God's Imputing righteousness: and the insufficiency of Faith alone to save.
14. WIgandus and Index Illiricus his companions, in their Syntagm. pag. 204, 205, 206. say, Hence it is evident to whom it is that Christ teacheth that his Merit, Righteousness obtained by fulfilling the Law, or Remission of sins is exhibited and applied: to wit, to repenting sinners, not to the obstinate, not to hypocrites that arrogate to themselves a Righteousness of Works, and satisfaction of the Law: To them that labor and are heavy laden, that is, do feel the heavy weight and yoke of sin, &c. Of the order that God observeth in Justifying man, Christ teacheth thus: That first, he doth by his word, that is the Ministry of the Law, excite in men's hearts true Repentance, or acknowledgment of sin, and serious unfeigned humiliation, that there may be in us true sorrow for sin, and all confidence of our own worthiness may be taken from us, and we may feel that we deserve nothing but just damnation, &c. And then that God in great love to mankind, doth by the voice of the Gospel propound grace, free pardon of sin, righteousness, • ife by and for Christ, to all Mortals▪ and willeth, yea commandeth, that all by this voice do lift up, and comfort themselves, embrace God's benefits, certainly believe in the Son, &c.] (This can show no less, then that all these are Conditions prerequisite to Justification. And pag. 240. and 262. they conclude that grace is lost by evil Works, and eternal punishments brought on men, unless they repent; that Faith, Grace, and the holy- • host are excussed by evil works; unless we be again converted to God, &c. Though I agree not with them in this, yet hereby it appears that they thought sincere obedience was Causa sine qua non, as to the continuance of our Justification.
15. SO Hemmingius (though the most noted defender of the rigid Imputation of Christ's Sanctification as against the defilement of our sin, and of his righteousness as against our guilt; on which last Wotton disputes against him) yet goes the same way as his fellows, making the Holy Ghost to be actually lost, and consequently Justification, by sin: and therefore must needs make sincere Obedience to be sine qua non to the continuance of Justification. So on Rom. 8. 13. he saith, [They that live after the flesh shall die; therefore let the Justified take heed lest being again deceived with the baits of the flesh, having excussed the Spirit, they give up themselves to the flesh. Let it be noted therefore that the Justified may slide back into their former filth, and cast away Faith, and perish eternally.] vid. reliq. And on verse. 1. [He teacheth that there is no condemnation to be feared of the faithful, so be it they walk after the Spirit.] And verse. 5. His two Sorites which he saith contains the Apostles argumentation are these:] 1. They that live after the flesh, do mind fleshly things. 2. They that mind fleshly things, mind the things of death. 3. They that mind the things of death, are enemies to God. 4. The enemies of God, displease God. 5. They that displease • od, are under the Curse. Therefore from first to last its concluded, that they that live after the flesh, are under the Curse.
Sorit. 2. 1. They that live after the Spirit, do mind the things of the Spirit. 2. They that mind the things of the Spirit, mind the things of life and peace 3. They that mind the things of life and peace, are the friends of God. 4. The friends o God, are pleasing to God. 5. They that please God, are free from the Curse of the Law. Hence it is concluded from first to last, that they that live after the Spirit, are free from the curse of the Law.
I cite only these five or six of the Lutherans, not as allowing their Doctrine of Apostasy, but because they are generally noted (specially since the Conflicts with Melancthon and Georg. Major ) to run too far on the other side in the point of Justification.
16. MR. Rob. Bolton, Direct. for walking with God. pag. 213. [Dreadful also is the doom of the said Father upon all wrong-doers: The sin is not Remitted, except that which hath been unjustly taken be restored; Either in act if thou be able, or at least in unfeigned affection if thy state be wasted.] Pag. 215. [ Zacchaeus 's penitent proclamation consisted of two branches, Luk. 14. 8. as well for Restitution as distribution: He that would find the same mercy, must follow the fame method] Pag. 264. [The last and everlasting doom at that great and dreadful day, must pass upon us according to our carriage in this kind: Then shall there be a severe and sincere search and enquiry made after Works, as the signs, and evidences, and outward demonstrations of Faith, and the root of Grace in the heart: or of unbelief and rottenness at the heart, and consequently as arguments of a righteous doom passed on the Sheep and Goats. That glorious Sentence of Absolution, Come ye blessed, &c. shall be pronounced upon the Godly, according to the effects and fruits of their Faith, to teach us in the mean time, What Faith to Trust unto, and Rest upon for Justification, even that which works by Love, &c.
(Should I have talked of Trusting to Faith, or Resting on it, I know what I should have heard: Yet I think the sober and judicious are not offended at these words.)
97. MR. Calamy in his Sermon before the House of Commons, Dec. 22. 1641. pag. 24. [And for my part, I know not any Doctrine more suitable to work upon your hearts and affections, then this plain Conclusion: That there is no other way to procure blessings from God, or to turn away judgments from the Land, but by turning from sin to • od. The Wrath and Punishments which sin hath twisted, Repentance will untwist; Sin is as a thick cloud, stopping the Sun-shine of God's mercy: but if we turn from sin, this will melt the cloud, and cause the Sun of Righteousness to shine upon us: Sin it is as a Devil in the Air, to hinder our Prayers from ascending: but if we turn from sin, this will charm the Devil, and make Satan like lightening fall down from heaven, &c. Sin is a wall of separation between God and us. To turn from sin, will break down this wall: Sin is the great make bate between God and man, &c. To tutn from sin, is a key to unlock all the chests of God's mercies. It is Clavis viscerum Dei, A preservative against all misery. O the Divine Rhetoric, and omnipotent efficacy of Repentance!] Read out the rest of that useful Sermon.
MAny of the most eminent Divines of this Nation in their Humiliation Sermons before the Parliament and City, have said as much for Repentance and Reformation as conducing to pardon, as ever I did. I will not stand to cite the particular passages, because my number hath swelled already so big, but use them as one Testimony, desiring them that question it, to peruse their words.
98. Dr. White in his Reply to Fisher, page 174. saith [The Protestant Doctrine concerning Good Works is perspicuous, Orthodoxal &c. 1. We believe that Good Works are necessary to salvation, &c. 2. God Rewardeth Good works of his bounty and grace, &c. 3. In giving Reward he considereth the mind and quality of the doer, the integrity, measure and quantity of the work, 2 Chron. 9. 6. 4. The Reward is Certain and Infallible, &c. 5. There is in all good works, a Dignity, not of Desert or equiparance, either in respect of God, of whom we can deserve nothing, or in respect of the Reward; but only of grace, divine similitude, goodness and honor. 6. The Reward of Good works is called a Crown of Righteousness, because it is bestowed on them which exercise Righteousness, and in Regard of their Righteousness; but Merit of Condignity, and Righteousness are divers things, &c. 7. The Ancient Fathers maintained no Merit of Condignity, but by the word Mereri, they understood either to obtain, or to Impetrate, &c. 8. The Prime Part of man's Justice, is the Remission of his sins, and the Righteousness of faith; for without these there can be no true and living moral Righteousness, and where these are found, good works are never wanting.]
Page 165. The promise of Remission of sins is conditional, Isa. 1. 16, 17, 18. Ezek. 18. 21. Prov. 28. 13 Mat. 6. 14, 15. John 15. 10, & 16. 27. Heb. 5. 9. and the same becometh not absolute, until the Condition be fulfilled, either actually or in desire and preparation of mind: and the full assurance of Remission of sins, succeedeth Repentance, faith obedience, and mortification,] Page 166. [1. We maintain that such persons only can have true assurance and Certainty of their Justification which believe and Repent, and are resolved to obey God's Commandments. 2. A Christian of a contrite Spirit believing only that his sins are Remissible, and which earnestly desireth remission of sins by the Merits of Christ, and Joyneth with this desire the exercises of Virtue, Receiveth Forgiveness, although he be vexed with scruples and temptations, and want Assurance and persuasion in himself that his sins are remitted. 3. The particular certainty of Remission of sins which Just persons attain to upon their Repentance, Obedience and Faith, is not equal in the firmity of Assent to that assurance which they have about the common object of faith, to wit, the Articles of Creation, Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, &c.—5. The difference between some learned Papists (who lived since the Trident Council) and us concerning this Questio • , is very small (if it be any at all) for they maintain that just persons may have a true and certain Assurance, without distrustful doubting of their Justification, and that infused faith inclineth and leadeth immediately to this Certainty and Assurance. Lastly our Doctrine concerning the form and manner of Justification, is the same which Peter Lombard affirmed to be Orthodoxal in his days &c.—]
See page 172, 173. The Catalogue of Papists that are against Merit of Condignity.
19. John Wicliff, Trialog. lib. 4. cap. 24. fol. 140, 141. [Phrones. 1. Our true believers as well as the adversaries, the disciples of Antichrist, do all • ke confess that to the blotting out of sin, it is requ • red that we have t • ue Contrition of heart: whence the first disposition of sorrow, which is not sufficient to the blotting out of sin, they call Attrition; and the following sorrow which is sufficient they call Contrition—Of Contrition I have spoken in the third part of my sermons 64 That it is a s • rrow sufficient to the blotting out of sin, which must be greater for the Loss of Grace, then the sorrow for the Loss of any temporal Commodities. And as long as such a degree of sorrow for sin is wanting in the sinner, he doth not fully sorrow with Contrition, for the loss of the husband of the Church.]
[Hence also it appears that he that is truly Contrite, doth not commit his former sin; for if he did commit it, he would lose the Degree of his Due sorrow, either extensively or intensively. And the Doctors truly say, that, To Repent, is To lament sins past, and no more to commit the sins lamented.]
See his proofs from Reason of a future Judgment and Reward, li. 4. cap. 39. fol. 168. where he saith, [Seeing God is Infinitely more Liberal and Bountiful then any temporal Lord: But temporal Lord's from the Reason of their Dominion, at the end do Reward their Servants: Therefore by greater reason it follows from his infinite Virtue on God's part, that he will finally Reward his servants. But it is not in this life, as is evident: therefore that Reward is left for the life to come. Nor is it sufficient that the Spirit only be Rewarded; for the nature of the body as it is by participation Rational, so it doth Merit punishment, or Joy, as is touched of man. As Therefore it is repugnant to God's Liberality and Justice, that the persons of men shall not be finally Rewarded, so is it repugnant as to the Rewarding of the Corporeal nature.]
See also what he saith of Reprobates falling away from a state of present Grace, and sin returning again that was once blotted out, lib. 3. cap. 6, 7. fol. 54, 55, 56. which implies the necessity of Obedience to the Continuance of pardon.
2 THe Homilies, accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England, say as followeth. Hom. against disobedience, and willful Rebellion, part 1. p. 545. (Printed 1569.) [Whereby it is evident, that Obedience is the Principal Virtue of all Virtues, and indeed the very Root of all Virtues, and the cause of all felicity.]
Hom. of Alms part 2. p. 325, 326. [The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying, Metcifulness and Alms-giving purgeth from all sins, and delivereth from death, and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness. A great confidence may they have before the high God, that show mercy and compassion to them that are afflicted. The wise Preacher the Son of Sirach confirmeth the same, when he saith, that as water quencheth fire, even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth sin.—If ye have by any Infirmity and weakness been touched and annoyed with sin, straight way shall mercyfullness wipe and wash them away, as Salves and Remedies to heal their sores and grievous diseases. And thereupon that holy Father Cyprian taketh good occasion, to exhort earnestly to the merciful work of giving Alms, and helping the poor, and there he admonisheth to consider how wholesome and profitable it is to relieve the needy and help the afflicted, by the which we may Purg our sins, and heal our wounded souls▪ You see what harsh language the Church of England (as they were called) used and thought useful (which for my part I approve not of, for all the Apocryphal Testimonies.) But afterward they avoid all the error that seems to be contained, by their explication; and conclude [p. 330. Though they (the Godly) hear and read in God's Word, and otherwhere in Godly men's Works▪ that Alms▪ deeds, Mercy and Charitableness, doth wash away sin, and blot out Iniquity; yet do they not arrogantly and proudly stick and trust unto them, or brag themselves of them, &c. The Godly do learn that when the Scriptures say, that by good and merciful Works we are reconciled to God's favor, we are taught then to know what Christ by his Intercession and mediation obtaineth for us of his Father, when we be obedient to his will.]
Pag. 320, 321. [And as all these by their mercifulness and tender compassion which they shown to the miserable afflicted members of Christ in the relieving, helping and succouring them with their temporal goods in this life, obtained God's favor and were dear and acceptable, and pleasant in his sight: So now they themselves take pleasure in the fruition of God, in the pleasant joys of heaven, and are also in God's eternal word set before us as perfect examples ever before our eyes, both how we shall please God in this mortal life, and also how we may come to live in joy with them in everlasting pleasure and felicity. Viacaeli pauper.
Hom. Of Repent. part. 3. p. 538, 539. [If thou wilt return and put away all thine abominations out of my sight, thou shalt never be moved, Jer. 4.—God will according to his Promise freely pardon, forgive and forget all our sins, so that we shall never be cast in the teeth with them, if obeying his Commandments and allured by his sweet promises, we will immediately return unto him.]
And speaking against the Papists Justification by Works, Hom. Of Salvation, part 2. they show that when we deny Justification by Works, this is the meaning, [To take away clearly all Merit of our Works, as being unable to deserve our Justification at God's hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of God—and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and deserving of our Justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood-shedding.] To which I wholly and heartily subscribe, and therefore exclude Works as far as they desire.
So endeth this Century of Witnesses, as • ribing (in my Judgment) as much to the Works of man as I, and some of them more.
If the Reader would know which of them do speak most my own thoughts, I answer most of them, if not all, in a great part. But Davenant most fully: and next him Bradshaw, Bergius, Lud. Cr • cius, and Dr. Twisse. There are some of another strain (as Spalatens. Repub. Eccl. Vol. 3. l. 7. c. 11. Sect. 207, &c. and cap. 11. Sect. 244. &c. Sect. 251. ad finem. and Grotius in Jac. 2. and Dr. Hammond Pract. Cat. &c. ) that might profitably be read on this subject. But I cite them not, because those I speak to, are not moved with their authority.
SECT. IV.
I Will not so far wrong any of those Divines that professedly differ from me, as to persuade the world that they are of my mind; but yet • will lay down the words of some of them, that the Reader may compare them with mine, and judge of them as he findeth cause. Those that have manifested their dissent from me, are of two sorts 1. Some that I suppose differ only or chiefly but in terms or methods, and not in any momentous Doctrine.
2. Such as maintain the Absolution or Pardon of Elect Infidels, or that we are justified before Faith, or some other Doctrine of moment, wherein I confess myself to differ from them. Of the first sort I will mention Mr. Blake and Mr. Burgess.
1. MR. Blake in his late Treatise of the Covenants, 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. See Chap. 14 and 15. and 6, 7, 8. I will not stand to cite his words, but refer you to them in his Book.
2. MR. Burgesses words are these. Treat of Justif. pag. 210. [For some gross sins, there are many▪ Conditions requisite (besides humiliation) without which, pardon of sin cannot be obtained.] And he instanteth in Restitution.
And Lect. 20. he saith, that Scripture limits Justification and Pardon only to those subjects that are so and so qualified.
And Lect. 14. pag, 117. [Scripture makes no pardon of sin to be but where the subject hath such Qualifications as this of forgiving others It is not indeed put as a • ause or Merit, but yet it is a Qualification of the sub ect: therefore our Savior repeateth, Except ye forgive others, &c. Act. 10. 47. Rom. 3. 15. 1▪ Joh. 1. 9. If we confess, he is faithful and just to forgive, &c. By these and the like Scriptures it is plain that Remission of sin is given us only in the use of these • races▪
And Lect. 18. p. 148, 149. [ Prop. 2. Although the Scripture attributes Pardon of sin to many Qualifications in a man, yet Repentance is the most express and proper duty.—If we speak of the express formal Qualification, it is Repentance of▪ our sins, &c. [ Prop 3. None may believe or conclude that their sins are pardoned, before they have Repented, Math. 3. 2. Luk. • 3. 3] Prop. 4. There is a necessity of Repentance if we would have pardon, both by▪ necessity of Precept, and of Means. • he Spirit of • od worketh this in a man to Qualifie him for this pardon: p. 150. Also he hath well shown in a whole Lecture, that our final Justification at Judgment, will be more complete then this Iustificatio Viae, which we have here.
Yet if the Reverend Author shall see cause to put any sense on his words contrary to mine, I shall readily admit his Interpretation, it being my purpose only to produce those words that seem to me to say as much as I do, and not to fasten any sense on them but what he shall own.
Also V • nd. Leg. Lect. 4. he saith, [Holyness and Godliness is the end of our Faith and • ustification; and that is the meaning of our Divines who say, Charity or Love of God is the end of Faith, till he hath brought us into eternal Glory, and there we have perfect Inherent Holyness, though even then the glory and honor of all that shall be given to Christ. Now indeed it hath pleased God to take another way for our Acceptation▪ then shall be hereafter. Only this may make for the Excellency of Sanctification, that therefore is Christ and Grace, and Justification, and all, that at last we may be made perfectly Holy.] And in the margent thus [Because Godliness Inherent is the end of our Faith and Justification.] See more of this, Lect. 14. pag 133, 134. Edit. prim.
And Lect. 3. p 33. [2. Our holy Dutyes, they have a Promise of pardon and eternal Life, though not because of their worth, yet to their presence.]
And Lect. 4. p. 42. [And thus in this sense, some Learned men say, Good Works are necessary to preserve a man in the state of Justification, although they do not immediately concur to that act.
And p. 4 [Hence some Divines say, That though Godliness be not meritorious, nor causal of salvation, yet it may be a Motive.]
And pag 41. [5. They are a Condition without which a man cannot be saved.]
3. MR. Lockier saith the like, (whether he is one of those that dissent from me, or of which rank I know not) His words are these on Colos. 1. 14. describing pardon of sin, having shown that it notes Reconciliation that it is an Act of God, an Evangelical act he addeth, ['It is a conditional act: men must Repent, and then God forgives: Repent that your sins may be blotted out; thus runs the Gospel throughout. Repentance hath two things; Sense of sin, and Faith in Christ, which Grace is said to Justify, because a necessary Condition of Justification; and without which, though not for which, God doth forgive. Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness, which is as much as if the Holy Ghost had said, Abraham went in the right way of Iustif • cation, and so found it: he sought it not by Works, but by Faith (for you know that is the dispute there) This was imputed to him for Righteousness; This, that is, not Nudus actus Credend • , the naked act of believing, the act abstractively considered, but conjunctively considered, as such a hand laying hold of such a person; this is the Condition which the Gospel calls for, that Christ be trusted in, which also God Works, which work being wrought, Justification follows actually.
Here Mr. L. 1. Makes Faith to be the Taking of Christ, and so do I. 2. He makes the very Act of Faith itself to be Imputed for Righteousness, not the naked Act abstractively considered, without its object. but the act conjunctively considered, as the hand laying hold of Christ, (that is as this Faith in Specie.) 3 He saith, Pardon is a Condi • ional act. 4. He makes Repentance as well as Faith the Condition. 5. He makes Faith therefore to Justify, because a necessary Condition of Justification, or a going the right way to Justification.
4. MR. John Owen saith, Treat. against Universal Redempt. li. 2. c. 1. p. 53. [In this last way they are usually called, Faith being the means of which we speak, and Salvation the end. Faith ihe Condition▪ Salvation the • romised Inheritance: under the name of Faith we comprize all saving grace, that accompanies it: and under the name of Salvation, the whole glory to be▪ revealed, the liberty of the glory of the children of God, all that blessedness which consisteth in an Eternal fruition of the blessed God▪]
5. THat Mr. Crandon acknowledgeth the main part of what I assert, I have manifested in my Reply to him▪ to which I refer the Reader; Sect▪ 7. And with his name will I conclude this file, as knowing none that is worthy to succeed him.
I think upon concurrence of so many Assenters as I have before produced, I may • afely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls▪ that they take heed of their Doctrine who make the mere 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 Teacher and King, and Head and husband, from being any Condition of it, yea and will have no other Condition of our Justification at Judgment; Who call that Affia •• ce▪ only by the name of Justifying Faith, and all other acts by the▪ name of Works; and tell men, that to be • ustified by the Receiving of Christ as King or Prophet, or to be pardoned on Condition of Repentance or Confession, is to be justified and pardoned by Works: there being no way to be justified by any act of ours▪ but as an Instrument, or as a Work; And the Affiance on Christ's Righteousness is the only Instrument: So that all the rest of Faith in Christ, together with Repentance and N • w Obedience, are not so much as Conditions of our Justification first or last, but me • signs; and to say the contrary is Popery, or Judaism. Unhappy is the soul that reduceth this Doctrine into Practice, and whose Affections and Conversations are▪ Regulated thereby.
And I say as Hoornbeek Socinianismi Confut. li. 1. c. 8. p. 187.
And as Dr. Abbot, Nusquam autem decreta Remissio peccatorum absquc Poenitentia, neque unquam alia Conditione concessa est. Fides ergo remissionis poenitentiam peccatorum anticip • re non debet. Neque vero inde pax▪ quia futura peccata nobis remissa esse Credimus cum Apostolo, lib • raturum nos Dominum ab omni opere malo, & conservaturum ad Regnum suum, ubi siquid secus intercidit, per humannam infirmitatem, esto, sed Impietas esto addere animum pe • candi quia futura quoque peccata remissa sunt.—Illud non improbamus, P • nitentiam vitae Christianae assiduum exercitium▪ & opu • esse; ut quomodo quotidiana est offensio, ita quoque Remissio quotidiana sit, nec absque poenitentia dicendum unquam putemus, Remitt • nobis debita nostra. Abbot in Thomsoni Diatrib. cap. 24. pag. 212.
See also what he saith, cap. 25, 26. pag. 213 of Faith, as being a mixed Habit, neque only in the will, nor only in the understanding, but in the heart, that is in both, and so to be defined.
I Have produced this Consent, in the point of Justification, because it is the main that men are offended at: Supposing it as easy to produce the like Consent in many of the rest; for example, in that other which Mr. C • ryl seems to touch upon▪ and Mr. Crandon doth so furiously assault me in, viz That God punisheth his Elect, yea after their Justification for all▪ Christ's bearing the Penalty, and satisf • ing for their sins. Because it is known to be so common a Doctrine, I will cite but the words of two Divines: the one unquestionably Orthdox, and a sufferer for opposing the English conformity, so far was he from being a friend to Popery: The other, the most Learned, though—of all my Adversaries.
1. MR. Udall on Lament. 4. 6. p. 164, 165. Doct. The Godly do usually sustain more grievous Punishments in this life, then any other people whatsoever▪] vid. ultr.
Pag. 137. [ Doct. Every child of God is justly punished, that faileth in any duty whatsoever it be, that God hath commanded him in his Word.]
The third Reason is, [The least failing in our duty is a sin, that provoketh God's anger, and bringeth a Curse, seem it never so trifling a matter in our corrupt judgment.]
The second Use is, [to Reprove them that think themselves wronged if they be punished, and have not fallen into notorious gross • ins; 3. To teach us to acknowledge God to be Holy, Just, and Righteous, whatsoever he lay upon us here.]
Pag. 132. Doct. 3. Whatsoever man suffereth, he is to esteem it justly deserved by his sins that he hath committed. Reas. 1. Because God is just, and cannot do any wrong▪ 2. All men commit many sins, the least whereof deserve all that can be laid upon us. The use is to teach us▪ 1. In all our Afflictions to acknowledge our sins to be the cause thereof, &c. 2. To learn to justify God, (which is the drift of this place) &c.]
Pag. 45. [ Doct. 1. God's people do acknowledge his Justice in all his Works, yea even in his Punishments laid upon them.] • ead the Reasons and Uses.
Why did never Mr. Caryl nor Mr. Crandon go about to Vindicate that which they take for the Truth of God, against Mr. Vdal and a hundred such, before me▪?
2. MR George Kendal of Perseverance in the Epist [Every sin draws a scourge after it: albeit he design men to heaven, yet many times he destroys them on earth: • ometimes blots out their names here below, as much as they are written in indelible Characters above; yea often leaves them to suffer in their posterity in this world, after they are Crowned with glory in the other, and visits the sins of their lives after their death, on that part of them which survives in their Issue: So terrible is God in his Judgments, even to those who have most of his mercy.]
THE Lord of mercy forgive those men that have necessitated me to spend so much time to so little purpose, and to draw the Reader to the like inconvenience, and pardon every fault of mine that hath occasioned men's offense! And hasten that time when the lacerated divided Churches shall be United, and the now contentious, exulcerated minds of their Leaders shall be calmed and moderated! when the name of a Party or Faction shall be as hateful as the name of a Drunkard or a Whore-monger! and the consuming Zeal for men's own Opinions, may be turned into a Zeal for the Christian Faith, and for a holy and Peaceable heart and life! when reconciling Truths shall be more Well-come to the Churches; and they that have so long fought in the Dark for their Extreams, which have carried them to Separations and Hatred of one another, may know at last what Spirit they are of, and may attend to the meek instructions of their Prophet, and the still Voice of the Prince of Peace; and unanimously following the Conduct of his Star, may return to the simplicity that is in Christ!
And the Lord illuminate and send forth some Messenger, that may acquaint the Churches with that True, middle, reconciling method of Theological Verities, which must be the means of healing our divisions. Let men be raised of greater sufficiency for this work, and of such blessed accomplishments as shall be fit to cope with the power of prejudice: and let the fury of blind Contradiction be so calmed, that Truth may have opportunity to do its work. And let not the Lord give men over to believe a Lye, because they received not the Truth in love! nor give up our strength and glory to be destroyed by Schisms▪ nor bury us and our hopes in a deluge of Delusions, because we have despised the Unity of his Saints, and would not know the way of Peace.
AN ADDITION TO The 11 th CHAPTER of the 3 d PART OF THE SAINTS REST.
IT hath seemed meet to M r K. to second M r Crandon, by an Impetuous opposition of my poor Labors, and having in his first Volume against M r G. assaulted my Aphorisms, in the second to fall upon my Method for Peace of Conscience, and my Book of Rest. Against the 12 th Chapter (misprinted the 11 th ) of the 3 d Part, he hath a Copious Digression, which I will not now Characterize either as to the Intellectuals or Morals, the Judgment or Honesty appearing in it, having reserved that to a 2 d and plain Admon • tion to himself. But because I intended these writings for ordinary Capacities, I would have nothing remain in them which may be an occasion of their stumbling: For the sake therefore of such Readers as would neither Err, nor be puzzled with Contentious Janglings about mere words, I shall give them this brief Advertisement following. It is so far from my desire to teach men to build the Peace of their Consciences, upon any nice Philosophical Controversies, much less on any Errors or singular Opinions of mine, that I desire nothing more then to lead them to, and leave them on the plain infallible word of God. My own Judgment concerning that sincere saving Grace, which we may safely try our estates by, I have plainly (as I could) laid down in that Chapter, and my Directions for Peace, and in the 39 th §. to §. 53. of my Reply to M r Blake: from whence I must desire the Reader to fetch it, and not from the Interpretations of M r K. which so seldom have the hap to be acquainted with the Truth, and who professeth himself that he doth not understand me: (whether it be long of me or himself, I determine not▪) To these I shall now add only these few words.
The everlasting Enjoyment of God in Glory by perfected Man, is the Felicity which all should desire and seek. This is propounded to us by God in his Word, and the necessary means thereto prescribed; Even Jesus Christ, and Faith in him, and Obedience to him, and to God in and by him. The distempered sensual Appetite, and depraved Will of man, do incline to Inferior sensual Delights. God hath resolved that these shall not be their felicity; and that they shall never be happy in the enjoyment of him, except they take him for their Chief Good, and so far forsake Inferior Good, which would draw the heart from him: and except also they Give up themselves to his Son Jesus Christ, and to his Spirit, to be Recovered unto Him. Though all men by Nature desire to be Happy, yet all do not Desire God as their Happiness: Nor do the Regenerate themselves yet perfectly Desire him, or perfectly forsake that Inferior Good, which was their supposed Happiness▪ before they were Renewed. The Understanding is commonly acknowledged to have three kind of acts: 1. A simple apprehension of the mere Entity of a thing, or of a simple term. 2. Judgment: or the Conception of a Complex term. 3. Discourse. The first alone moves not the Will, because it concludes not of the Goodness or Evil of the thing Apprehended. The second (Judgment) is either about the End or the Means: and either Absolute, or Comparative. Several things are commonly called, Mans End (how properly I now inquire not) 1. Felicity in General. 2. Himself, the subject, commonly called the Finis cui. 3. The Natural and Moral perfection of his Person. 4. The Act of fruition, or perfect Complacency in the Blessed object, upon a full Vision: commonly called, our formal felicity. 5. The Object itself (that is, the Blessed God) commonly called our objective Felicity, and our finis qui or cujus whether fitly, we shall better know hereafter.) The two first Nature hath tied us to: But not so the Object, nor to the Perfection of the Soul in a spiritual suitableness thereto. The first Absolute Judgment produceth in the Will, a simple Complacency or Displacency: this is the first motion of the Will. The Comparative Judgment where it is necessary, produceth Intention and Election, or else Refusal, and resolves the fluctuating Will. Where there is but one Good propounded, (either one Objective End, or One Means of absolute necessity) or wherever there's omnimoda Ratio Boni, nothing but Good apparent in the object, there is no work for Consultation, or the Comparative act of Judgment, and Consequently for Election: but the Absolute Judgment would proceed to be Practical, and carry out the Will to Intention and prosecution: Were not man's soul blinded and depraved, there should be no Deliberation about his End, and so no Choosing of God as our End: but an Absolute Intending him, as having no Competitor: and it cannot be without great sin, for the Judgment to make any Question or Comparison, and so to Deliberate, Whether God or the Creature be our felicity? and, Whether God or our Carnal selves should be our End? But seeing our depraved Judgment and Will, and Vitiared Senses, and the Tempters setting the Creature in Competition with God, do necessitate a Comparative Judgment and Deliberation, even about our End itself, therefore there is a kind of Election of God as before the Creature, or a Consent or Resolution so to prefer him, that is necessary, before or with a right Intention and Prosecution of that End: Besides the Election of the Due Means, that is, Necessary, seeing Satan and our flesh are so ready to propound wrong means, in Competition with the Means of God's prescribing. All this being so, I further add, That the same Will that hath a Complacency in a thing as Judged simply Good, may yet Reject and Nill it, or Refuse to Seek or Receive it, if it be Judged either a L • sser Good inconsistent with a Greater, or any way to have more Evil in it then Good: And as the Understanding doth at once apprehend it as Good Absolutely, or in some Respect, and Evil in other respects, and Comparatively a Less Good; so doth the Will at once continue to Love or Will it so far as it is Apprehended as Good, and to Nill and Reject it as Inconsistent with a Greater Good, or a hinderer of it. But if it fall out that the Inconsistency of these is not discerned or believed, or but Imperfectly, then may the Will by a Practical Volition Will them both.
To apply this: The Understanding of the unregenerate may know that God is Good, and Good to them, and that in very many and weighty respects he is desirable. They may know that worldly things will shortly leave them▪ and then if they have not God's favor they shall perish: but if they have, they shall attain both perfection of body (which they may desire) and perfection of mind, (which they desire in general, and may submit to in the particular way of Holiness, as more tolerable then Hell) besides some imperfect ineffectual knowledge of a beauty, and desirableness in Holiness itself, accompanied with an answerable motion of the Will: But every unrenewed man, hath more prevalent Apprehensions of the Goodness of the Creature (partly by unmastered sense, and partly by perverted reason) and therefore apprehendeth God as Evil to him, so far as he would hinder his enjoyment thereof, or would punish him for sinful adhering to it: So that 1. his highest Practical estimation is of the Creature, yet not without some esteem of God: 2. And his prevailing Will is to the Creature, but not without some Will to God. And ordinarily such men are so fully convinced of the Impossibility of enjoying the Creature forever, and being happy any other way then in God▪ that, though they could wish an everlasting fullness of the Creature, yet (seeing none but fools do Intend an End which they know Impossible to be attained) they do therefore compound a felicity in their own fancies, of the world for a time, and Heaven for Everlasting: One part standing in the enjoyment of the delights of the flesh while they live here; and the other in the deliverance from Hell, and blessedness in Heaven hereafter: hoping that these are not inconsistent, but they may have heaven when they can enjoy the world no longer: because they see that many Saints Possess abundance of earthly blessings, and persecution is not now so common as it hath been, therefore they suppose they may possess the like: upon which expectation they Enjoy what the Godly do but use, and so give it the preeminence in their hearts: Or if they be convinced of the Inconsistency of a Carnal mind (in a prevalent degree) with an Interest in the Happiness in the Life to come, they will either persuade themselves that they are not carnally minded when they are, or one way or other will under-prop their hopes of Enjoying both: But still their fleshly mind is predominant, and therefore they will cast their Salvation upon the adventure of such hopes, as have nothing but their own delusions to support them.
On the other side, the Regenerate, being here Imperfect in all their Graces, are Imperfectly taken off those Carnal Ends which they Intended in their unsanctified state, and Imperfectly Inclined to God as their End: so are they also both in discerning and choosing the sittest Means, even Christ himself, and Obedience to him. So that the best are Carnally minded in some Degree, but not in a prevalent Degree, for then they should die: The flesh and world have still some Interest in the Saints, but not the strongest: as God and the Redeemer may have some Interest, though not the chiefest, in the practical Judgment and Will of the unsanctified. Whether you will say, That the same man hath two distinct inconsistent Ends, one as Regenerate, the other so far as he is still Carnal; Or whether you will give the name of an End, only to that Good which hath the greatest Interest in him, I will not contend about a word: If that only be called our End which is prevalently Intended in the main course of our lives, then it is God only that is our End: But if that may be called a man's End, which is Intended in his distempers, and deviations, then the Creatures may be called ou • end, so far as we are still Carnal: For it is not only as a wrong chosen Means to our Right End, that we sinfully adhere to the Creature; but it is more as it stands in competition with ou • Right End, and as we Will and Love our flesh pleasing for itself. Its true, the sensual Appetite may desire it for itself, because it belongs▪ not to it to carry us higher, and to Intend an End. But the Rational Powers must subordinate both Creatures, and our natural delight in them to God. And I do not think that it is by a mere brutish Irrational motion that the godly adhere too much to the creature.
I did therefore deliver my thoughts on this point, thus. That as the Act is denominated from the Object, and specified by it, so the Grace that is saving most (as to the Acts) consist not only in the Absolute but Comparative Judgment, and in that Choice or Comparative Willing that follows thereupon: And though there be 40 intricate Philosophical Controversies about man's Willing the End and Means, which stand in their way that would make the most exact discussion of this point, yet every Christian may safely go on these Grounds, and Conclude, That when Christ's Interest is predominant or greatest in the soul, there is saving Grace; but where it is not, there is none, though yet he may have some Interest there. Here is a double preeminence that Christ must have, or a double prevalency of Grace, that it may be saving: 1. The Object must be Preferred before that which stands in Competition with it. 2. The Act must be prevalent in Degree against its Contrary, so far as that the heart and life may be denominated from it. 1. The Absolute act of the Judgment makes no Comparison: Therefore in that only the later must be looked after. Assent to God's word upon his Authority, must be Prevalent against our Dissent: and that will appear in our serious obeying it, &c. 2. In the Comparative act of the Judgment there must be both: God must be Valued and Esteemed above all Creatures: And our Esteem must be Prevalent against our slighting and disesteem of him. 3. The main point of Trial is in the Will: And there must be both these prevalencies beforementioned. God must be Willed as better than all Creatures: and our Willing of him must be in a prevalent Degree against our Nilling or Unwilling. For there is in the best on earth some remainders of Aversness to God, which may be called a Hating of him, so far as they are Carnal: though they are not therefore fitly to be called Haters of God, but Lovers of him; because they must be denominated from the Prevalent Part. The like may be said of all the Affections, so far as they are of the Rational part: for of the sensitive Passions, there is not so sure a Judgment to be made, as I expressed pag. 213. and in my Method for Peace of Conscience. In the Choice of Means all this is as clear, if not much more. Christ must be preferred before all Competitors, and all rejected for him: and our Willingness must be in a Degree that is prevalent against our Unwillingness, and our Faith as prevalent against Unbelief, and our Subjection must prevail against our Rebellion, and our Obedience against our Disobedience in the course of our lives. He must have the main bent of our hearts and endeavors, though in a particular act the flesh may prevail. This is it that I have asserted: and with a Consent to this I am satisfied. As for the point of specification of our Acts, I never look to see the Schools agreed about it, how confidently soever M r K. talks, as if they all Conspired with him, Call the difference Gradual or Specifical, as you please, so we agree in the sense, I am content. I chose to call it a Moral Specifical difference, and in that sense do maintain; That the faith of the best of the unsanctified is not specifically the same with that of the sanctified, and so of Love and other Graces. As to that Saving faith, all other is but Analogically called faith, as I have shown in the § before-cited against M r Blake. But yet I am not of M r K ' s opinion about the Natural Specification of Acts, for all his Confidence. I yet think that Acts are Naturally (and not only Morally) specified from their Objects, considered Physically: and are Morally specified by those Objects as Related to the Laws that command, forbid, threaten, promise; and so by the Laws themselves: (which D r Twisse will needs say, are no species of Acts, though vulgarly so called. Vind. Grat. l. 2. par. 2. Digres. 9. p. 410.)
I now desire no more of the Reader then to Consent; 1. To the express words of Scripture, which I cited in that Chap. 11. §. 15. which I desire him to review: 2. And to that which M r K. and I are agreed in. I hope you will take this for a reasonable motion, it being unlike that the Cretian pen of so bold a man, so self-conceited and superciliously scornful, should grant me much more then he needs must. Let us examine his Concessions, for Matter and Words. 1. For sense, he confesseth pag. 137. thus [ I am of M r Baxter's mind, that no sober Divine will tell us, that if we love God never so little without dissembling, yet he will Accept it, though we love our lusts before him ] So oft he yieldeth that all sincere Love to God, doth prefer him before all other. Where then is our difference? Why, he thinks that no▪ others, Believe or Love God at all, but those that Love him above all. I did affirm, That as to that same Moral Species of Faith and Love, they do not at all Believe and Love God: but as to another Species they do, and truly do it. How oft doth Scripture say of the unsanctified, that they Believed in Christ, at least, for a time? But I shall leave it till I speak to M r K. himself, to prove that men unrenewed may have Faith and Love to Christ, though not saving. And whereas our Doctor according to the complexion of his Conscience, doth prefer me to succeed Pelagius in his Chair, for affi • ming, that Carnal men (by the greatest help of common Grace, as I opened my meaning) may have weak Inclinations to Spiritual and Superior Good, while he hath stronger to Inferior: I would have him review his Sobriety, in making all Divines and Churches of Christ, since the Apostles days, so far as I am able to discern by my small Reading, or by Reports, to be Pelagians. I never heard of any that thought so basely of the highest measure of that Grace which is not proper to the Saints, as this man doth. If it no whit lead▪ to God, how is it Grace? If this Doctor dare warrant his hearers, that they shall all be saved that have the least Faith, or Love, or Inclination to God; I dare not Imitate him. Except they love him above all, I dare not tell them that they are true D • sciples. Nor do I think that Nature itself is Averted from God in the highest Degree, nor all the wicked of one degree of sinfulness, nor yet as bad as they shall be in hell. Our Divines that tell us how far Hypocrites may go, do not talk in the strain of this Doctor.
Well! but how far are we yet disagreed even in terms? Why I said, that it is not a Natural, but a Moral specific difference, and so doth he: Pag. 109. he saith [ But against whom I pray do you dispute then? &c. I dare be bold to say, there is not one that affirms a Natural or Physical difference, as you call it, between the acts of Common and Saving Grace in this your sense ] And is it not pity that this Doctor that is so well agreed with me for sense and terms, should be put to the trouble of so tedious a Digression. Forsooth▪ I did unhappily express myself, because I used not his term [ Appretiative ] which though I neglected, I think on sufficient reason, yet to Please him, I will use it when I think on, and have no better. And so we were best part while we are Friends.
M r Gatakers first Letters, IN ANSWER To a QUESTION about Administring SACRAMENTS in a private place, wherein his Advice was desired by the Ministers of our Association: Wherein he declareth his Thoughts of two of my Writings, which some quarrel with.
Worthy Sir,
THe receipt of your kind and brotherly Letter, together with those two pious, seasonable and useful Pieces, which you were pleased to bestow on me, as upon the delivery with much gladsomnes of spirit, I could not but entertain, so with no less thankfulness of heart, by these I desire to acknowledge. As for the long delay of this mine acknowledgement, my humble request to yourself, and those other your Reverend Associated Brethren is, that it may not be mis-interpreted, as either proceeding from a willful neglect, or savouring of a dis-respect either of them or yourself; which indeed, I confess, might not unjustly be deemed, unless the reason of it were rightly conceived; but when the occasion thereof shall be truly related, I hope, it will remove all suspicion and surmise of failing or faultiness on my part in either kind; the packet wherein your Letter, with those precious Pieces, was included, came not to my hand (by whose default, I know not) until the eighth of this instant; on which day it was by a messenger from London delivered to my servant at the door, and by him brought in to me sitting at dinner with some strangers; which having presently broke up, and having cast mine eye on your name at the foot of your Letter, I could not forbear to read over, and with much cheerfulness so did, before I rose from the board, and so laid aside, resolving by God's permission and assista • ce, to return Answer thereunto, so soon as I could have opportunity for some cursory Survey at least of either of your Pieces; which also after a little time taken for the speedy dispatch out of the way, of a Work left with me for allowance, being suddenly to pass to the Press, I set presently upon; and having with as much expedition as I could run over either, being so drawn on with that delight and content which I took in the subject matter of either, that I could not afford unto myself any respite, save as urgent occasions unavoidable enforced necessary interruptions, until I had accomplished my resolved intendment; when I began now to set pen to paper for the drawing up of an Answer, I was exceedingly damped, taking notice of the date of your Letter, which I had not formerly observed, being May 9. full two months ancienter then the arrival of it with me: while with myself I considered, not only, that what I should return in some regard might come altogether unseasonably, but that this long delay might be subject to mis-interpretation, as arguing a disregard and slighting of my Reverend Brethren of better esteem and repute then myself, not vouchsafing them so much as a line or two in so many weeks intervening, and a backwardness to enter into any good correspondence with them; a disposition which from my heart I have ever abhorred: howsoever conscious to myself of mine own weaknesses, I have never been over-forward to intrude myself into the affairs of Brethren abroad; nor have had much occasion of intercourse in this kind, living mostly in an obscure corner, save with some few of my Brethren, with whom by occasion of alliance, or more inward conversing together formerly, I had contracted and continued familiarity and acquaintance. And thus much having premised to clear myself from any aspersion or suspicion, that this long delay might have occasioned, of ought in this kind, I shall proceed unto that, which I resolved to return.
That Work of yours (to begin with it) which yourself seem to have so light an esteem of, is in my account a very precious Piece, and of singular good use: For that therein that great and weighty business, wherein so many millions of souls are so nearly and deeply concerned, is in my poor apprehension (and I speak it sincerely, and without flattery) more fully and exactly discussed and determined, then in any that I have hitherto lighted on, that have dealt in that Subject. And indeed herein have you carried yourself with exceeding great wisdom and wariness, as by laboring to discover and distinguish the grounds and nature of this malady according to the grounds from whence it proceedeth, that the remedies may be respectively applied with the better hope of desired success; so in cutting out an even way and course of cure, between the mistakes of many godly Teachers concerning the true Nature of Faith on the one hand, whereby many weak souls have been formerly further mashed and entangled, that were more then enough puzzeld and perplexed before; and those absurd and impious conceits maintained by men of corrupt minds or affections, or both, who like unskillful or unfaithful quacksalvers, by instilling of loose and lewd principles into the minds of those that are seduced and deluded by them, as by palliating plasters, and stupefying medicines, give their patients ease of their pains and aches for the present, but withal cast them into more dangerous and desperate diseases. And truly, Sir, for mine own part I have ever been of the mind that these scrupulosities in weak and tender hearted Christians, are as some weeds, which though weeds, and of no good use, yet argue a good soil, which a skillful Husbandman therefore will not refuse to deal with, or to deal for, being on good terms tendered in sale, as one unskillful it may be would: And yet as those weeds, because but weeds, would be rid out of the way, for that they cumber the ground, and hinder the growth of things more useful; so these needless scrupulosities, though oft signs of a gracious soul, of an heart desirous to approve itself unto God, careful to please him, and fearful to offend him, yet because they much distract and disturb the mind, disable the soul unto that cheerful service that God requireth of his, and hinder the growth of grace, which would thrive with many much better if they were away; my course therefore hath been with such as I have found much perplexed and molested in this kind, to persuade them, upon the groundlesnesse either of the affection itself, or the inference which through weakness of judgment against themselves they thence usually raise, to endeavor what they may, to lay them aside, and remove them; withal advising them to look principally unto duty, and leave the comfort of Assurance as matter of reward unto God, when he shall please to afford it; yet not neglecting the means whereby it may be attained, of which I conceive this to be a principal one, to wit, a sedulous application of themselves unto a constant performance and conscionable employment of themselves in those offices, which their peculiar stations and relations as well as those which the general calling of a Christian requires of them. But, Sir, what do I thus casting a dish of water into that River, unto which I may justly, and shall not fail to direct others, and whence I deem it no disparagement to draw myself? The Lord vouchsafe to bless your labors herein, an • yourself abundantly for them, as I doubt not but that many do, and will bless him for yourself and them, even then when you shall have no need of their blessings, having fully received the fruit of your labors, and being now in perfect bliss. This only to show that I have seriously perused it, and how I esteem of it.
For the other Piece, concerning Association; which I have likewise run over: albeit I be myself now miles emeritus, by reason of age and infirmities otherwise, utterly disabled unto my wonted employment, and do therefore in effect retain only a bare Title, to keep out some unworthy one, that were like otherwise to be obtruded, but for which I had long since wholly resigned as well the Title as the burden together with the benefit, which another enjoyeth so far as it can be attained, yea further at present then is by me received, neither hath i • been my happiness since that some face of a Discipline hath been settled in these parts, to be able to convene with my Reverend Brethren of the Classis, wherein I reside, at their ordinary meeting places, or to enjoy their Society, save, when they have been forced for want of a full company to come hither down to me, that I may serve as a cifer to make up a complete number; yet doth it exceedingly rejoice me at the heart, to hear of any such Combination and Agreement of the Lord's faithful servants in any part of the Land, endeavoring as with one shoulder by mutual consent to carry on the Lord's work, and to settle and support the distracted and tottering estate of his Churches among us, by swarms of misleaders, and shoals of their followers, miserably torn in pieces, and almost utterly laid waste in most places: And it reviveth my spirits not a little in this present feeble and fainting condition, by ministering some matter of hope to me, notwithstanding so many plots and projects on foot to undermine and subvert his Ministry among us, that the Lord is not yet deserting of his Congregations in the midst of us, when he raiseth up the hearts of so many his faithful and able servants, to put their hands jointly to a work of this nature. Nor shall mine instant prayers unto him (the only service that I can do you) be wanting in your behalf, that he will be pleased, to strengthen your hands in this his work, and go along with you in the prosecution thereof, that by the gracious conduct of his powerful Spirit, taking good effect, and finding a prosperous issue, others may be encouraged to undertake the like work, to the further restauration and better constitution of his Churches among us, the preservation of his people from those damnable Doctrines, destructive of the very power of piety that are scattered abroad in all places with us, and the strengthening of his flocks by mutual assistances against such seducers and false teachers, as would by slight or might be either creeping in among them, or breaking in upon them. There will, I doubt not, many difficulties encounter you in the carrying on of so weighty a work (for what work of worth or weighty concernment is without much difficulty accomplished?) as well from cunning and secret underminers, as by open and violent opposers. But the Lord All-sufficient is able to furnish you, as with spiritual wisdom to discover and clude the wiles of the one, so with Christian courage to wrestle with, and out▪ wrestle the other, so as that neither of them may be able to prevail against you, no more then those adversaries of God's people did in Nehemiah's days, either by their fox-like wiles, or by their Lion-like threats and forcible attempts against those despised and derided ones, that then labored in the restauration of God's Church, and Constitution of his Service, amids those manifold obstructions, disturbances and disadvantages which in pursuance thereof they met with, as well at home as from abroad; yea whatsoever the issue of the business shall be (for the issue of no man's attempt is in his own hand) your pious endeavor (and that is all God requires of us) shall not go unregarded or unrewarded with God. But I forget whom I write to; (only I consider, that the acclamations even of idle spectators are wont somewhat to hearten those that are wrestling or running in a race) and whom you intimate to have written unto, Brethren much better able, each of them severally (jointly how much more abundantly?) to afford you either advice or encouragement then myself; and who▪ in likelihood, your Letters arriving far sooner with them then with me, have long before this given satisfaction to you in the office therein required of them.
To draw towards an end; as concerning the particular Case propounded about the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in private upon some special occasions: The Directory indeed doth restrain the Administration of the Sacraments unto the place of public meeting. And I doubt not, but that the Question concerning the private Administration of either was seriously considered of, and sedulously debated in the Committee whereunto that part of the Directory was then designed, and again upon their report, if any doubt were moved about it, in the public Assembly; where if any were, the Scribes who took the several debates there in writing, are best able to enform: For my part I am not certain whether it were questioned at all in the Assembly; nor do I remember that that part of the Directory fell to the lot of that Committee, whereof I was a Member: But for mine own opinion herein, I concur in judgment with that learned man Sam. Maresius in Decisionibus Theologicis regimen, ordinem, praxin & eutaxian spectantibus, Qu. 2. & 3. to wit, that howsoever loci & temporis circumstantiae non sunt de essentiâ Sacramenti, yet it is a thing most convenient, considering the nature and use of the Sacraments, ut in publicis conventibus administrentur, which by him appears to have been the judgment of Calvin, and is affirmed to be the constant practice of most of the Reformed Churches: And the contrary practice, as it may seem to favor, and be a means to nourish some Popish conceits concerning either Sacrament, the relics whereof remain still with many among us: so being in some cases admitted, it may bring in many inconveniences, one requiring the like privilege as well as another, and much murmurings and heartburnings, that it is not alike condescended to, though the cases be not alike. Yea it is apparent already, that where way hath been given thereunto, others expecting and exacting the same liberty, most Baptisms in many places are become▪ private: as also private Communions are grown very common, desired most by ignorant or Popishly affected people. For the Objection from the children of Believers right to Baptism; I suppose the Answer not difficult: True, where it may fitly, and with due conveniency be had: nor conceive I, under submission to better judgment, that the examples of the Eunuch baptized by Philip, or the Jailor by Paul, are of much force here, to infer the like usage and practice in settled and embodied Congregations. And for the other Sacrament▪ which is a more special badge and profession of our mutual communion with that body politick whereof we are members, it seems the rather to require a public Convention: neither seems there to appear in Scripture any the least track or intimation of any administration of this Sacrament, save at times and in places of public Convention.
Thus, Sir, I have been bold, according to your request, to acquaint you with my thoughts herein, without prejudic • to any, that may herein dissent from me, and with submission of mine opinion to further information from others that may be either quicker sighted, or better experienced in businesses of this nature, being a matter not so much of necessity as of conveniency and expediency, wherein the scale in some cases may turn either way.
The Lord, Sir, vouchsafe to give a blessing unto the present business: and to support and strengthen you both in body and mind, that you may be yet further useful unto his people, as by your constant courses and indefatigable endeavors hitherto you have been. That which is and shall be the hearty prayer of him; who earnestly craves of you the like Christian office at the Throne of grace in his behalf, that he may be sustained and enabled to stand upright in these faltring and deficient days, that the close of his frail and fainty condition, which he apprehendeth near at hand, may be accompanied with inward comfort and peace; and whose desire is hereby to acknowledge himself
Your unworthy Fellow-servant, and deservedly high esteemer of yourself and your fruitful Labors Thomas Gataker.
Rederith July 20. 1653.
POSTSCRIPT.SIR,
ALbeit I cannot present you with ought of mine equivalent, or of like use to either of yours, yet I shall entreat you to accept of such a sorry Piece, as some kind of necessity hath extorted from me, which with these you shall receive: The defect of my memory much failing me, as you may easily descry by my frequent mistakings, which I hope you will excuse.
M r Gatakers second Letters Declaring his JUDGEMENT OF MY APOLOGY.
Worthy Sir,
YOurs of May 24. together with your very welcome present (for both which I return you many thanks, a sorry requital) came to my hands June 7. upon receipt whereof, perceiving by the Title, that it contained much variety and store of such matter, as I much desired to see dealt in by some able hand and pen, and deemed none fitter in divers respects to undertake then yourself; I presently setting all other businesses aside, addressed myself unto the cursory perusal of the several parcels. That which I purposely made choice of to begin with, was that debate with M r Kendal, the rather, because I had heard both the Work and Workman by some highly extolled, though I had never seen either; and a religious Gentlewoman sometime visiting me, among other discourse, related unto me, that understanding that notice was given of an Ordination of Ministers to be on such a day in such a place, and repairing early thither to get a convenient room, the better to see the whole carriage of that solemn performance, she demanded of the Clerk (as they term him) who officiously attended her, Who was the Pastor of the place? who answered her, it was one D r Kendal, a gallant Preacher, one that had written against M r Baxter; and by occasion thereof asking me, who that M r Baxter was; I told her, if she would but read such a work of yours, which I used to commend to my friends, and had been sometime long since commended much to me by a pious Kinswoman, that professed to have received no small benefit and comfort by it, (whenas I had not so much as heard of your name before, though of another of the same name, nothing like you) she might soon come to know both who, and what manner of man you were. Howbeit in reading over M r Eyre 's Vindiciae, lighting on a strange Exposition of that Scripture-phrase, in God's s • ght, cited out of him, there began to arise some doubt in my mind, whether the man's soundness of judgment might be all out answerable to the high report raised of him, and abated with me much of the esteem, that I had formerly entertained of him. Nor do I find it much improved again with me, by his whole Digression read over, as I find it related here in your Book; notwithstanding that, Tanquam Martius anguis, Nic m • diâ plus parte leves erectus in auras, D • spicit omne nemus; and as one mounted up into some lofty Chair, he seem to cast his eye down on his Adversary, whom he hath picked out to oppose, as one sitting beneath at his footstool, or lying far below him on the ground; whom he therefore frequently turns off rather with ironies then with Arguments. But such high-flown spirits I have so oft observed, to be large promisers and scant performers, that apud me magna fidem premissa levant; and I see them sometime, while they strive to show their rank wits, slip into such absurdities, as other of weaker brains and shallower capacities are able easily to des • ry and discover the folly and vanity of, while they please and pride themselves in them, and look that other should applaud them. Having dispatched your Debate with him, I went on to the ensuing ones, in whom, as in the former, many passages I could not read but with much indignation, divers not without laughter. And truly, Sir, it vexed me not a little, to think how you were fallen into the hands, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only, but as the Apostle speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as seem to have laid aside in their dealing with you, not Christianity and charity alone, but even common civility, ingenuity, humanity, and shame: and yet withal could I not forbear to laugh at their folly, that had no more wit and discretion, then by such manner of dealing so inconsiderately to lay open their own nakedness, and expose themselves in the issue unto contempt even with the meanest, losing much of that reputation with sober-minded men at least, that before by their parts other ways they had gained, while by such unchristian, unseemly and unsavory carriages they seek to improve and inhance it. But you have, Sir, for the main matters in contest between you and them, besides their reproachful and cheating courses (for they are many of them no other, no better) so put it home to them, that you have thoroughly and abundantly vindicated yourself, cause and credit, from their false and frivolous aspersions, with all not grossly fore stalled and palpably partial; and I suppose they will have little lust (those later of them above pointed at, I mean, that yet survive) to reply ought, unless they have so brazed the fore-head, that they regard not at all, what men deem or say of them, so they may seem to say somewhat, and have the last word: Which is, I doubt, in part the disposition of that grand Champion of the Antipoedobaptistae (for an Anabaptist he will not yet be termed) who (as I am informed) hath lately published a Work of that subject, in way of Answer to a whole half dozen of Opposites, whereof you are said to be one.
For your Confession, I should have been glad to have seen it, and shall be right glad to see it, when it shall come abroad. But I heard nothing at all from your Bookseller concerning it: your Letter and Book being brought over to me by a poor woman, whom he made use of for the delivery of it, who having delivered it, made no stay. Nor do I suppose that it needed any perusal of mine, not likely to contain any matter of moment, that would require change: and if some phrase or form of speech should have occurred, concerning some notion, which in other terms▪ I should have deemed more fitly expressed, yet might your own expressions seem the fitter to you, as mine to me; nor would the matter in likelihood have been of that importance, as might countervail either the delay of the Work, being already in part wrought off, or the damage necessarily incurred, by either the stay of the Press, or reprinting, while Letters at such distance pass v • cissim to and fro. Otherwise I should not have been nice of affording that office, though less needful, to one, whom I ingenuously acknowledge to owe so much to in divers respects, and concerning mine esteem of whom I both speak and write that occasionally to others, which I will not to yourself; which I am not wont to deny unto divers other, whom I stand less engaged unto, requesting of me, for what cause sometime I know not, to peruse some things, which they purpose for the Press, or have already published, and to give my thoughts thereof; which though I find sometime a thankless office, yet hath proved with other some not unuseful. From yours, Sir, I should rather have hoped to learn and gain somewhat, then to help mend or better ought.
As for mine own work, though having found it a very tedious business, to raise any well-composed frame out of such maimed and confused Notes or scraps rather, as I find them to be; yet I had begun to set upon it, and had written out some few sheets of it, when some other urgent occasions intervening, enforced to lay it aside: and to let you know the plain truth, I am now at a stand (considering the multitude of intricate questions, and nice subtleties concerning this subject, th • t I meet with in the writings of learned men, occasioned a great part of them by those vain and fond fancies, which these men have of late broached, and many are much taken with among us, such as I little dreamed of, when above twenty years ago I dealt in this Argument, framing my then Discourse in a practical way most, to the capacity of a plain popular Auditory, in doubt whether at all to resume it, and return to it again. Howsoever I shall not refrain briefly to acquaint you with my mind concerning the seeming difference of those two great Apostles in this point, which I suppose will prove the same in substance with what I find here in yours.
The Case or Question in Paul and James to me seems not the same. In Paul the Question is of sin in general, concerning which when any man shall therewith be charged; there is no means whereby he may be justified, that is, justly assoiled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner, but by his faith in Christ's blood; Christ's blood having made Satisfaction to God's Justice for sin; and his Faith in it, giving him a right to it, and interest in it. Whereas in James the Question is concerning some special sin, and the questioned persons guilt of it, or freedom from it, to wit, Whether a man be a true or a counterfeit believer, a sound and sincere, or a false and feigned Professor? In which case, any person that is wrongfully so charged, may plead not guilty, and offer himself to be tried by his works, as in some cases God's Saints have done, even with appeal to God himself: That which may be illustrated with instances for either case in Abraham▪ David, Job, Paul, and others. The first hint and occasion given me to the consideration hereof, was from a Collation that a reverend and learned Divine M r John B • yse, one of the Senior Fellows of S t Johns in Cambridge had of this Argument, when I was a young novice in that House. Paul, said he, dealeth in genere didactico, by way of Instruction and Information, as the Master giving the Scholar out his lesson: the only way for you, being sinners by nature, to become discharged of your sins, is by faith in Christ's blood. James, in genere elenctico, by way of Examination and Trial; as the Master in hearing and examining his Scholar. Have you learned your lesson? Yea, then you can say it, you can construe and pierce it: if not, it is certain you have not yet learned it. So here. Have you taken out the L • sson Paul taught you? Yea, then you can say, then you can show it. Do you▪ believe in Christ? Yea, then it will appear in your life, else it is apparent you do not. So he then; and either from him or some other I remember to have heard that cited as Zanchius, Fides justificat hominem, opera justificant fidem. These gave hints of that, which I afterward pitched on. But I hope this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will shortly be more fully discussed and cleared at the Commencement in Cambridge, where (as I am informed by a Letter from my worthy Friend D r Tuckney, who withal sent me his Sermon, a Learned and pious Piece, Preached at the Funeral of that Faithful and Painfull Servant of Christ D r Hill, now at length Printed: The loss of whom and memory of it, together with the late departure from us of my next Neighbor M r Whitaker, not coming short of that other eminent person either for piety or sedulity in the work of the Lord, wherein also they were for some space of time Collegues, while God was pleased to continue any measure of ability to him, and a mirour of patience amids those extremities of pains that the Lord for a long time exercised him with, proceeding from exulcerated Kidneys, a Stone in the Bladder, and the neck thereof gangrened; a precious man, and the loss of him much lamented by all the Pious in these parts. Ah, how many such useful Instruments far younger persons then myself hath the Lord of late taken away in the midst of their days, in the prime of their strength, when they might have further have been very serviceable to his people, having much need of such in these loose and unsettled times, while I stay still, as a rotten stake in the hedge, rather needing support then helping to support; or as his truncus ficulnus, inutile lignum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , encumbering only the ground; an useless creature, a bare title of a stander, which now at length I have also wholly in a manner divested myself of, and devolved to one of good abilities to undertake and undergo the Charge, under the weight whereof I have long groaned. But, Sir, you may perceive by this impertinent excursion, quam per aetatem malam hanc, as he terms it, and Solomon himself, deliram, as the propriety of the word is by some Critics deemed to import, and forget what I was about, and had begun to relate. De semitâ in viam. At the approaching Act or Commencement at Cambridge, the former Thesis to be disputed and asserted the second day is said to be this, Jacobus non contradicit Paulo in Articulo Justificationis, the later is concerning the Deity of Christ: Those for the first day are, Evangelici convenientes in fundamentalibus debent se mutuo ferre in extrafundamentalibus. Articuli fidei supra rationem non sunt contra rationem. All of them very seasonable and suitable to the state of these times.
In running over these your Elaborate Debates, (which I wonder much, considering mine own weakness especially, how you were able with such speed to dispatch, or could find time but to write) though but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which a great Author inhibites) and by starts, (being oft interrupted by unavoidable intervening occurrence, and restless, until I returned again to them) so greedy was I of devouring the whole, when I had once taken a taste of it, that much of it went down without chewing, while I feared to be taken off mainly, if not wholly, ere I were got to an end, by some expected employments, which go much against the hair with me, but I cannot shift off. Howbeit in this posting haste I took notice of a slip or two overseen at the Press, and in the Errata therefore not appearing: It is the want of a negative in two places not far asunder, if I mistake not, with L. C. p. 270. prope fin. The first Grace hath a prerequisite Condition, though oft preparations, &c. Should it not be, no prerequisite Condition? Again, p. 276. l. 12. 1. That God did (not, sure wants) from eternity send his Son,—but in the fullness of time, &c. but any ordinary Reader may of himself easily discover the defect in either of those places, and without other help supply it. As also that in the Debate with M r Bl. p. 155. l. 2. The most—that explain (for, exclaim) against my Judgment. But ibid. p. 38. l. 9. there is a passage that I have been chewing the cud upon, and cannot get over: The words are these, Credere non est actus subditi vel l • gatarii, sed Rectoris, Judicis & Testatoris, &c. I am not ignorant that Credere in that sense, whence with us a Creditor, for fidei alterius quidpiam committere, may be actio Testatoris, but how that will agree with the main drift of your discourse, I conceive not, and there seems therefore to me, unless I mistake, some mistake in the words.
Concerning Believing in Christ, (which seems scarce good English) or Trusting on him, or in him, (which I suppose the more proper) I cannot as yet conceive, but that, to Trust on Christ, and to Receive him, and to be Bred of G • d, (for so I would rather render it Bred, then Born, to take off that nice distinction, wherewith B. D. seeks to elude M r P. in his Appendix) and to be Adopted by God, are so many distinct notions, yea and several things, though never severed. And the term of Receiving being acknowledged to be Metaphoricall, (as, if my memory do not, which frequently it doth, fail me, yourself somewhere expressly say) of Trusting on or in being proper: it may seem not so fit to define, describe, or expound the proper by the tropical, which in D r Gouges Definition of Faith I first observed, but could not then so well relish, and find since in many other: Nor do I find where the term of Regeneration is used to comprehend Justification, Remission and Adoption; which you seem to affirm, with L. C. p. 200. whereas on the other side M r Forbes in his of Justification, makes Adoption to comprehend it, which he makes therefore the prime benefit, and the rest to spring from it, wherein I cannot assent to him. Nor can I yet bring my mind to close with B. Downham against M r Pemble; in Defense of whom against him I had once a purpose to write a short Discourse framed out of such Exceptions as I had blurred the Margin of my Book withal, and to have crowded it into some other Work. And yourself also seem to depart from him, in placing Faith before Regeneration, where you say with M r Bl. p. 103. prope fin. This ( viz. to take God sincerely for their God) no unrenewed soul ever did or can do. Nor seems B. Davenant so clear herein, making some graces concomitants of Faith, as Repentance; some consequents, as Love. Wherein also you seem to leave him, affirming the Reception of Christ to be a loving receiving of him, which cannot be without Love. As for the Instrumentality of Faith in or about the work of Justification, albeit the term commonly received and used be not proper, yet as the meaning may be, you seem not to disallow it. And surely Faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar Office in the transaction of that main business of Justification, then either Repentance or any other grace, as the Love or Fear of God, or 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 nowhere by Repentance, albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required: as also that form of speech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 God's justice for our sins by Christ's sufferings, which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at God's Tribunal. Nor is it as I conceive the intent of our Divines, when they use that term, to lay upon it the main stress of the great difference between us and the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification, which as it is laid down in the Council of Trent, (howsoever some of them that wrote before it, came in a manner home to us, and some of them that have writ since, seem now and then to condescend much to us, till they come to deliver the genuine sense of the Council) stands upon other terms, as Guil. Rivet hath shown at large in his Vindiciae Evangelicae de Justificat. Part. 3. Cap. 2, & 3. But these things, Sir, I mention not to put you unto the trouble▪ of writing about them, having your hands so over-full already; but to propound them only to your consideration, as you find, or meet with occasion. Many thoughts of them, but confused ones, I have sometime in my brains, which I find no fit terms to express, nor ability aptly to distinguish and orderly to digest: Trouble enough, and more then enough, I fear, I have put you unto, in tendering to you these so many scrabbled and blurred lines, which I am scarce able sometime to read over again myself. Nor will I imitate the Florentine Cooper, whom his soul, when he was so long about lighting a candle to see it, checks for complaining of and laying the fault on the moistness of the tinder, the bluntness of the stone, and the badness of the steel, when indeed the main defect and default was in the weakness and unsteadiness of his own hand; excusing this my scrawling by the badness of my pen, ink and paper, none yet of which I was well stored with at present, nor can I be furnished with, when I want, or have not at hand, but from the City; but the main reason of my such slovenly and illegible writing, and so oft blotting and interlining, is partly from my slippery memory, that forgets what I began with, ere the sentence be ended, and partly from mine unsteady hand, very much shaking after a few lines of any length drawn slowly out and dispatched, and this unsteadiness, (contrary to the wont of most others) being much more troublesome to me in hot weather then in cold, and making writing therefore more tedious to me in the heat of Summer then at any other time. But it is high time for me to cease by my prating (you may well apply to me that of the Poet, not so ancient as the Name given him pretended, O solâ fortes garrulitate senes ) to molest you, and withhold you from better and more useful employments. I shall conclude all, as with a renewed acknowledgement of a double engagement unto you, the one for your gift and your peculiar affection to me thereby expressed, the other for the work itself, and the business therein undertaken and transacted, so exceedingly advantageous, if not for the stopping of the mouths, (for who can charm the untamable tongues of such quarrelsome, licentious and shameless people?) of these broachers and abettors of these pernicious conceptions and impious notions gilded over with the specious Titles of Free Grace, and Gospel-Doctrines, &c. like those Quacksalvers implements, of which that Ancient Writer, Tituli habent pharmaca or remedia, pyxides venena, yet to discover their frauds and the dangerousness of their devices to others, and to defend and clear up the truth of God against their wicked impostures, and consequently for the staying of those that otherwise might be, and the reducing of some at least, that have been seduced by them; in which kind I hold, as all God's people in general, and myself in particular, very deeply engaged unto any whom they know to have eminently labored, as yourself here have done, and to bless God for stirring them up and enabling them thereunto: So with earnest also and hearty prayer unto him, whose work it is that herein you do, that he will vouchsafe in much mercy and goodness, to second these your Pious undertakings with his blessing, whereby they may become efficacious for the end by you intended in them, to support and strengthen you in your present languishing condition, against the malicious calumnies and oppositions of your ill-minded Adversaries, and to enable you to proceed in the propugnation of his Truth and cause, so as his might may appear in your weakness. That which shall be the constant request at the Throne of Grace of▪
Your feeble and weak-handed, but unfeigned and sincerely affected Friend and Fellow-servant, Tho. Gataker.
Rederith June 20. 1654.
M r Gatakers last Letter with his Notes.
Worthy Sir,
MY Father being by an extreme languishment of body disenabled to write unto you himself, hath required me to give you this account of his present condition, and of his endeavors to express his respects unto you: On July 7. he received some sheets of your Confession: the night following he was surprised with fainting fits, which afterwards turned to a Tertian Feaver: yet in the intervals he perused your Papers, wherein he met nothing of much moment that required any animadversion▪ Some things of less concernment he had noted in a loose Paper, which you shall find enclosed herein. He lies now expecting God's season of removal of him hence, which he professes much to desire, hoping that his unquiet and painful state here will be by God's mercy exchanged for a blessed condition of rest in the Lord, before this come to you. He beseeches God to lengthen out the line of your life, enabling you to proceed in Defense of his Truth, against these novel inventions, and to the clearing of yourself from these gross and false calumnies of il-minded men. Thus, Worthy Sir, my Father recommends himself unto you, and I desire you to employ your prayers for our comfort, assuring you that your good opinion of, and kind respect to my Father hath engaged me to remain,
Sir,
Your very loving Friend and Servant in the Lord, Charles Gataker.
Rederith July 21. 1654.
PAg. 23. l. 1. Though I have read. ] The sentence seems 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nothing to answer the things. l. 3. The Author a Papist. ] I have run over much of his Book, and find him an Arminian and a Revelationist, not a Papist.
Pag. 40. n. 25. l. 4. To sanctify is to pardon. ] If Justification consist in pardon, as you seem to hold, and by repentance as a condition we obtain pardon, it seems then that we are sanctified before we are justified, and consequently pardoned.
Pag. 41. n. 26. l. 11. Sanctity and phrases. ] read, Praises.
Pag. 77. l. 21. Tho. Grotius saith. ] read, Though (or though scil. quanquam) Grotius saith.
Pag. 80. l. 4. As we did. ] read, As if we did.
Pag. 108. l. 7, 8. Any man man. ] read, may.
Pag. 114. l. 2. Which the contrary opinion lies. ] Somewhat seems to be wanting.
Alicubi scribitur, Intercession for Intercision.
The sheets H. I. I had not. The last sheet I received is Y.