that more and worse is feared which what it should be we cannot imagine unless it be that they fear we will at last renounce Christ and Christianity But to this we will say with David 2 Sam. 16.12 it may be the Lord will look upon our case and requite us good for this reviling Dr. let p. 12. Downame Bishop of Derry whom our Authour also commends in his Letter shall next come in for a Witness on our behalf who in his Book of the Covenant of Grace saith The promises of the Gospel cannot be applyed to any aright but only to those who have the condition of the promise page 134 135. which is the justifying Faith For the Gospel doth not promise Justification and Salvation to all but to those only who have a justifying Faith Therefore a Man must be endued with justifying Faith before he can or ought to apply the promises of the Gospel to himself For as Salvation is promised to them that believe so damnation is denounced to them that believe not Mark 16.16 John 3.16 18. Again No man ought to apply the promise of the Gospel to himself who hath not the condition of the promise ibid. page 153. unless he will perniciously deceive himself For as he that believeth shall be saved so he that believeth not shall be condemned page 154. Again As we daily sin so we must daily ask forgiveness Prayer being the means that God hath ordained to that end Object Yea But saith the Papist ye forsooth have already full assurance of the remission of all your sins not only past but also to come Answ It is absurd to imagine that sins be remitted before they be committed and much more that we be assured they are remitted before they be either remitted or committed That indeed were a Doctrine to animate and to encourage Men to sin But howsoever the Pope sometimes forgiveth sins to come yet God doth not When God justifyeth a man he giveth him remission of sins past Rom. 3.25 As for time to come we teach that although Christ hath merited and God hath promised remission of sins of all the faithful unto the end of the World notwithstanding remission of sins is not actually obtained and much less by special Faith believed until Men do actually believe and repent and by humble and faithful Prayer renew their Faith and Repentance For as God hath promised to the faithful all good things But how Matt. 7.7 8. To them that ask Luke 18.13 14. that seek that knock So also remission of sins Neither is it to be doubted but that remission of sin though merited by Christ though promised by God though sealed unto us in the Sacrament of Baptisme is obtained by the effectual Prayer of those who believe and repent for whom Christ hath merited it and to whom God hath promised it in his Word and sealed it by the Sacrament even as the obtaining of the rain which God had promised 1 Kings 18. ver 1 41. and the Prophet Elias had foretold is ascribed to the effectual Prayer of Elias James 5.16 18. To Bishop Downames we add the very Learned and Pious Gatakers Testimony When â—altâ—arsh the Antinomian had objected and said either place Salvation on a free bottom or else you make the New Covenant but an old Covenant in new terms Do this and live believe this and live repent and live obey and live Gataker replies This is frivolous because as hath been shewed Gatakers shadows without Substance page 49. Salvations free bottom is no way impeached by such conditions as these required and scandalous because therein the Apostles Doctrine is not covertly but directly challenged as overthrowing and razing the foundation of free Grace For what is believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved but believe and live Or what is repent that your sins may be done away but repent and live Or what is He is the Authour of Salvation to all that obey him but obey and live And I demand again what this amounts unto whether it be any other than blasphemy to say that the Apostles by such their Doctrine did not place Salvation upon a free bottom but brought in the old Covenant again in new terms Sir Dare you say in your new revealed Mystery believe not and yet live repent not and yet live obey not and yet live Again We may truly say that you and yours are they that either cannot or will not see the Wood for Trees Ibid. page 57. the conditions on which Salvation by Christ is propounded though in the Gospel they do every where occur and offer themselves will ye nill ye to your eyes With Gataker we joyn Mr. Ball who in his Treatise of Faith recommended by a Preface of Dr. Sibbes saith Balls Treatise of Faith part 1. page 86. The promise of remission of sins is conditional and becometh not absolute until the condition be fulfilled This is the word of Grace Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved When doth this conditional proposition become absolute When we believe what That our sins are pardoned No but when we believe in Christ to obtain pardon which is the thing promised upon condition of belief Again The priviledge of Grace and Comfort which comes to the Soul by believing must be distinguished from the Condition of the Covenant Ibid. page 89. which is required on our parts before we can obtain pardon Again We can teach no Faith to Salvation but according to the rule of Christ Repent and believe the Gospel no remission of sin Ibid. page 136. but according to the like Rule Luke 24.47 Acts 2.37 38. But Faith seeketh and receiveth pardon as it is proffered in the word of Grace Repentance is necessary to the pardon of sin as a condition without which it cannot be obtained not as a cause why it is given Luke 13.3 1 John 1.9 Acts 11.18 If Mercy should be vouchsafed to all indifferently the Grace of God should be a boulster to mans sin c. Lastly We conclude this head of our defence with the Testimony of the Synod of Dort We have already shewed that the Geneva Divines in that Synod gave it in under their hands and were therein approved by the Synod That the Covenant of Grace is conditional We might be large in shewing the like of many others but we will confine our selves for brevities sake to the Embdan Bremen and English Divines their Suffrages recorded in the Acts of the Synod First The Embdane Divines in the Synod said That God required the same conditions from those that were in Covenant with him under the Old and New Testament to wit Faith and the obedience of Faith Act. Synodi Dord part 2. page 93. Gen. 12. Abraham believed God and the Apostle â—in Rom. 4. Teaches that we are saved by the same Faith Gen. 17. Abraham is commanded to walk before God and be perfect The same is every where
without just reason we think to satisfie them we may well say what is a great truth that the habitual Seminal Principle of Faith is a qualification of the Person to be justified and that the actual Exercise of Faith is the receptive applicative Condition of Justification This is our first Reason 2. Reason The seminal abiding Principle of Faith is a holy disposition of the Soul whereby it is inclined and fitted to elicit and produce the Acts of Faith This is clear because it is in a special manner the gift of a Holy God and the fruit of his Holy Spirit who cannot be the Authour of any Seed Disposition Inclination or Habit in the Soul of Man but what is good and Holy But now that Seminal abiding Principle of Faith is before Justification This is clear as the Sun because it is before the Act of that Faith whereby alone we are said to be justified and that it is before the justifying act of faith we thus demonstrate That which concurs to the producing of the Act is before the act since it is in part the cause of the act and the cause as such must always be in order of Nature at least before the effect and it implies a contradiction that it should be otherwise But the Seminal abiding Principle of Faith concurs to the producing of the Act of justifying Faith for it is given unto us for that end that it may fit us for inclines us to and help us in acting Therefore it is before the Act of justifying Faith and consequently before Justification it self Here then we have found a Holy Seed and Principle put by God into the Soul before Justification And therefore it is utterly false which the Letter saith that there neither is nor can be any good or holy thing in the Soul or any real change wrought on the Soul before Justification 3. Reason The Act of Justifying Faith is a good and holy thing since it is the effect of God's Holy Spirit and the first Fruit of the foresaid Holy Seed of Faith in the Soul But so it is that even according to our Authours own Principles the Act of Faith is before Justification For as was observed before he says out of Gal. 2.16 We believe that we may be justified and if so then it is evident that our believing is in order of Nature at least before we be justified 2. He holds that Faith is the Instrumental cause of Justification and lays great stress upon that Notion as if it were the great fundamental of his Religion he likewise finds great fault with us for not holding with him that Faith is the Instrumental cause of Justification Now according to this Opinion of his he cannot avoid the placing of the Act of Faith before Justification because it is the Act of Faith that receives Christ and his Righteousness and that is the instrumental cause of Justification But all the World knows that every proper cause as an instrumental cause is in its kind is in order of Nature before its effect Either then some holy good thing is in us before Justification or Actual Faith is no holy good thing and his instrument wherewith he makes such a noise is good for nothing but to blow the Coals of Strife and Contention 4. Reason Before a Man can be justified by Faith there must be a real and holy change in him because of an Unbeliever he must become a Believer and that cannot be without a real change and a holy one too Now that a Man from being an Unbeliever must come to be a Believer in Christ before he can be justified by Faith in Christ is self-evident for how can a Man be justified by Faith in Christ who yet hath no Faith in Christ he must then have Faith before he can be justified by Faith But how shall he get this Faith Can he get Faith whilst he still remains in Unbelief that is impossible For Unbelief either signifies not believing or it signifies positive disbelieving and 1. If it signifie not believing it stands in a contradictory opposition to believing and contradictions are utterly inconsistent Can a Man believe in Christ and not at all believe in Christ at the same time We hope our Authour will not be so ridiculous as to go about to reconcile contradictions 2. If Unbelief signifie positive disbelieving disbelieving in power and prevalency then it stands in a contrary opposition to believing and two contraries in power and prevalency are likewise utterly inconsistent in the same subject at the same time A Man that is in the very Act of positive disbelief and under the power and prevalency of it cannot possibly have an actual Faith in Christ at that time Therefore that an Unbeliever may get actual Faith in Christ and be justified by that Faith he must of necessity be changed really and effectually changed he must be changed from being an Unbeliever to be a Believer he must come off from his sin of not believing or of disbelieving unto the practice of his Duty of believing in Christ that he may be justified by Faith But this cannot possibly be without a real change nay this coming off from the sin of Unbelief to the Duty of Believing is a real change and a holy change too therefore there is and must be a real holy change in Man in order of Nature at least before his Justification by Faith in Christ This is as certain and evident as that Two and Two make Four Yet our Authour finds fault with us for making it a part of our new Scheme that there must be a real change in a man let page 30. that he must be changed from his Unbelief that he may come to Christ by Faith for Justification And elsewhere he says That it is the experience of every Believer that every one who believeth on Jesus Christ page 11. acts that Faith as the chief of Sinners And if so then it follows by necessary consequence that every one who believes on Christ acts that Faith as an Unbeliever for according to him unbelief is the chiefest sin so he writes expresly That Vnbelief is the most provoking to God page 15 16. and the most damning to man of all sins Unbelief then is the chiefest sin and if so certainly the Unbeliever must be the chiefest Sinner and the Believer who acts his Faith as the chief of Sinners must act his Faith as an Unbeliever And that is a very odd way of acting Faith to believe as an Unbeliever Yet no man can help it for if our Authors Doctrine be true it must be so and cannot be otherwise because it is that which the experience of all Believers witnesseth unto and as he writes page 24. The Believer or Accepter of Christ in the very act of believing or accepting of Christ expresly disclaims all things in himself but sinfulness and misery And if he do so then he disclaims that is renounces his Faith it self in
obtained Hence Paul saith Rom. 8.13 If ye live after the flesh ye shall die And Heb. 3.12 Take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God We do not therefore think that the Act it self of believing repenting and mortifying the flesh doth effect or merit the conservation of Justifying Grace because all these things are done by us faintly and imperfectly sometimes also through the Prevalency of some great Tentation they are as it were choaked and oppressed but we say that God himself of his free Mercy preserves the Regenerate in a state of Grace and Salvation whilst they walk in these wayes As therefore for the preservation of Natural Life it is necessarily required that a Man carefully avoid Fire Water Precipices Poysons and other things which destroy the Health of the Body so for the preservation of Spiritual Life it is necessarily required that a Man avoid Vnbelief 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 But these Actions do not preserve the Life of Grace properly and of themselves by touching or producing the very effect it self of preservation but improperly and by accident by excluding and removing the cause of destruction Thus we have at large refuted the Authour of the Letter his Second Errour against the Purity of Christian Faith and have fully and clearly proved the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional This we have done first by clear Scripture Secondly by certain and evident Reason grounded upon Scripture Thirdly by Testimonies of Orthodox Divines and First by Testimonies of the Antient Doctors of the Primitive Church Secondly by Testimonies of Divines of the Reformed Churches both at Home and Abroad and particularly by the Testimony of the Divines of the Famous Synod of Dort Whence it is as clear as the Sun that we preach no new Arminian Gospel in this great Point of the Covenant of Grace and consequently that the Authour of the Letter is a false Witness in Matter of Fact who hath proclaimed us to the World to be Preachers of a new Arminian Gospel on the account of our Doctrine in the point of Justification If after all this he should say that though we have proved the Covenant to be conditional and Faith to be the receptive applicative condition of it yet we have not proved that Faith justifies as a Condition We Answer That look by what place of Scripture he shall ever be able to prove that Faith justifies as an Instrument and a hand by the same shall we prove that Faith justifies as a receptive applicative condition For as we said before we take a receptive applicative Condition and a moral foederal instrument to be one and the same thing So did the Westminster Assembly of Divines before us And in this sense which alone is justifiable we hold Faith to be both an Instrument and a Condition with respect to Justification And if that will please our Authour we shall grant him that Faith is a hand and not only a hand but an eye and a mouth too an eye to look unto Christ crucified John 3.14 15. John 6.40 Isa 45.22 And a mouth to eat and drink and feed on his Crucified Flesh and Blood John 6.35 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58. We shall conclude this Answer with the Testimony of Two Learneder and Wiser Men than our Authour seems to be The first is the Reverend Mr. Lukin a Worthy Judicious Congregational Minister in his Life of Faith printed above Thirty years ago Lukin 's Life of Faith p. 24 25. For the question about the Interest of Faith in our Justification whether it justifie as an Instrument or as a Condition I think saith he it deserves not half the words that have been used about it they are both of them School-terms and not found in the Scripture and should not therefore disturb the peace of the Church especially seeing both Parties at variance are agreed in the thing but not in the formal notion under which they do conceive it and I think both lides are so far agreed that Faith may be called an Instrument allowing much impropriety of speech and that it may be called a Condition while we thereby do not suppose any such thing as merit Thus Mr. Lukin Now we heartily accept of this expedient for the calming of the Tempest which the Letter hath raised We will never desire the Authour to call Faith a meritorious condition for we never called it so our selves if he will grant us that it is but improperly an Instrument of Justification The other is the Learned Turretin that famous Calvinist Professor of Divinity lately at Geneva who writes thus Caeterum non anxiè quaerendum putamus an fides instrumenti notionem induat in hoc negotio c. Turretin Instit part 2. loc 16. quaest 7. p. 737. But we do not think that it is curiously to be enquired after whether Faith put on the nation of an Instrument in this matter of Justification or likewise of a condition as it seems to some men For nothing hinders but both notions may be ascribed to it provided Condition be not taken for that in consideration whereof God justifies Man in the Covenant of Grace after the manner that works were the Condition of Justification in the Legal Covenant For in this sense it cannot be called a condition unless we come over to the Socinians and Arminians who will have Faith or the Act of believing to be accepted by God for perfect Righteousness which we have but now resuted But taking the word Condition in a large sense for all that which is required on our part to obtain that benefit whether it have the notion of a cause properly so called or only of an instrumental Cause for as that Condition hath the relation of an Instrument so that Instrument hath the nature of a Condition on our part without which Justification cannot be obtained Thus Turretin to which we fully agree except that we think he gives too much to Faith in conceiving it to be an instrumental cause of Justification yet since he says that it is no cause properly so called it follows necessarily that it is not properly an instrumental cause and so hath no proper causal influence upon the act of Justification and if so then it is but improperly an instrument as Mr. Lukin saith and so the whole Controversie comes to nothing but a strife about the propriety or impropriety of a word which Turretin plainly saw and therefore confessed that Faith is so an Instrument as to be a Condition and so a Condition as to be an Instrument of Justification And taking the word Instrument in a moral Sense for a means of receiving the benefit of Justification for Christ's sake only we do unfeignedly affirm as Turretin doth that a sincere Faith is both the Instrument and Receptive
wherewith this man either maliciously or ignorantly asperses us especially when they may clearly see that his Calumnies do not hang together but are inconsistent and contradict one another which is a sure mark whereby to know a Calumniator and false witness Mark 14.56 We do not positively say that he doth thus calumniate us out of meer malice but we are sure it is and must be either out of malice or ignorance and we willingly incline to the more charitable which is the safer side that he doth it rather out of pure ignorance and blind zeal than out of meer malice and Cain-like hatred of his Brethren But whatever moved him to it the thing it self is unwarrantable and injurious for which he must give an account to that God who is an infinitely more judicious Observer than he or any of his party and who as he observes all our opinions and practices so he judges always aright according to the true merits of every cause and in this cause we can with a good conscience lift up our face to the Lord our God and say Lord thou whose understanding is infinite and from whom nothing can be hid and who hast infinite power and right to punish us with everlasting destruction if we now lye to thee and dissemble with thee thou knowest that our cause is not Coincident with the cause of Pelagius and that this man doth Calumniate us in saying that judicious Observers cannot but perceive that they are coincident To thee O God we appeal from this false Accuser of the Brethren and unto thee we referr our cause to judge between us and this man whether it be coincident or the same with that of Pelagius But it may be our Author will object and say That if our cause be not coincident with that of Pelagius yet it is at least coincident with that of Arminius We answer that neither is that true For 1. Our Author and those of his way commonly say that the cause of Arminius and Pelagius is all one and therefore if they say true in that and do not calumniate Arminius our cause cannot possibly be coincident with the cause of Arminius unless it be also coincident with that of Pelagius they being both one and the same 2. Our Author saith That we are for the middle-way between the Arminians and the Orthodox as he calls them If that be true our cause must lye in the mid-way between the two extremes and then it is impossible to be Coincident with the cause of Arminius for that is one of the extremes and it is evident by ocular demonstration that the middle cannot be the same with either of the sides and so cannot be coincident with either of the extremes If our Author say that we are come off from the middle-way and are come over to Arminius and so are now on the other extreme and wrong side in opposition to the Orthodox who are on the extreme right side We Answer 1. If that be true and he know it then he is guilty of a gross lye in saying that our cause is coincident with that of Arminius and so that we are Arminians and yet that we are for a middle-way between the Arminians and the Orthodox If he will have us to be Arminians he must not if he be a true honest man say that we are for a middle-way between the Arminians and the Orthodox 2. If we be come over from the middle-way unto the Arminian extreme we desire our Author to tell us when it was and how long it is since and how he knows that we are come over to the Arminian extreme for we profess sincerely that we know none of these things We neither know when it was nor how long it is since nor do we know that we are yet come over or ever shall come over to the Arminian extreme Indeed we dare not pretend to any certain Knowledge of Future Contingents that are not revealed to us yet we trust in our God through Jesus Christ that by the Grace of his Spirit he will keep us so firm and fixed in the Truth of his Word that we shall never go over to the Arminian extream And since we know certainly what we are for the present as to this matter we can safely and with a good Conscience call Heaven and Earth to Record this day against this standerer that we are not Arminians and that he doth very sinfully reproach and calumniate us in saying that we corrupt Christs pure Gospel and obtrude on People a new Arminian Gospel to the certain Peril of their Souls and that our Cause is Coincident with that of Arminius But 3. Though according to the Light which God hath given us by his Word and Spirit we believe that the Arminians erre from the Truth in many things and we do from our Hearts dissent from their Errours yet we hold our selves bound in Conscience as we must answer to God at Death and Judgment not to calumniate them nor any other Erroneous Brethren and therefore we cannot in Conscience say that whilest the Arminians keep within the compass of the five Articles wherein they differed from our Divines at the Synod of Dort their cause is coincident with the cause of Pelagius We do indeed think that something and too much of Pelagianism or Semipelagianism is implied in and by consequence follows from their Principles but that doth not make their cause to be Coincident with the cause of Pelagius Therefore our most Judicious and Consciencious Divines do not scruple to declare Pelagianism to be a Heresie against the very Foundation of Christian Religion But as for Arminianism keeping within the Compass of the five Articles their Consciences will not suffer them to say that it is one or more Fundamental Errors or Heresies this might be sufficiently proved by many Testimonies of our Divines but instead of all that might be alledged we shall Content our selves at present with the Testimony of that famous General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which in the Year 1638. at Glasgow deposed all their Bishops though that Assembly had accused many of their Bishops of Arminianism yet did they not say that Arminianism was as bad as and Coincident with Pelagianism and that it was a Fundamental Heresie They were so far from saying so that in the seventh Session November 28. the Moderator Mr. Henderson in the Face and with the Approbation of the Assembly gave this Moderate Answer unto a Politick Objection of Dr. Balcanquel who appeared there for the Bishops Controversias omnes c. That all the Controversies especially if they exceed not the limits of the five controverted Articles between the Arminians and Anti-Arminians or Calvinists neither were nor are about Fundamental Doctrines that indeed the Arminians erred grievously but that he and the Synod were not yet perswaded that all Heterodoxies that is that all Erroneous Doctrines Hist motuum in regno Scotiae Dantisci An. 1641. p. 100 101. are