conditions of Gods Covenant or promise rather than of ours for our own promise is the first part of them and our performance of that promise but a secondary part Is not here a convincing reason Our own promise is the first part our performance the second part Ergo they are more properly the conditions of Gods Covenant then of ours I deny not the thing but wonder at the reason but speed it as it will I thence collect that promises and performances are distinct things and that is enough for me Our promising to God I am sure is our covenanting this then differs from Covenant-keeping or performance and is not to be confounded with it There followes For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and life to the World on condition of their acceptance This our Divines against the Papists and the doctrine of merit have fully proved That God doth freely give Christ to those that accept him I freely yield and that our Divines have fully proved it against Papists I confesse and that it must be asserted against Antinomians but what Divines have proved that Gods Covenant is his free gift of Christ and life to the world on condition that they will accept I know not It is the first time I think that ever I heard it This then is a full definition of a Covenant which I yet think comes short of it and if it be a truth it well serves my purpose many a Covenant is made and conditions never performed After his expression of himself about the modification of our acceptance of Christ by faith he addes Our acceptance or consent is our Covenanting and our Faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our Faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms or a consent that he be ours and we his on his termes And who knowes not that this Faith or Covenanting or consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and life offered I do know the latter and therefore upon that account as upon divers others I deny the former I know that justifying faith is the condition by us to be performed and I as well know that it is not our covenanting but our making good our Covenant That Faith by which the Romans stood in Covenant with God was such a faith that the whole visible Church of the Gentiles had and the Jewes both Rom. 11. But this was not a justifying faith but short of it To make justifying faith and Covenanting Synonyma is an error I am confident of what size I leave to others to determine If they were both one Scripture would promiscuously speak of them but we find that it still distinguisheth them and gives us clearly to understand that the greatest part of Covenanters are short of Faith that is saving and justifying Ordinances in which the Covenant of grace is dispensed and which speak all those that entertain them to be in Covenant are granted of God to men short of justifying faith as their proper inheritance Rom. 3.1 Deut. 33.4 Titles implying a Covenant-state as I have abundantly shewed are given of God to them that are short of this faith viz. Christian Disciple Saint Believer Called Brethren God imposes Covenant-conditions makes promise of Covenant-blessings upon these imposed conditions to those that are short of Faith that justifieth These therefore are in Covenant Though I hear neither of Scripture nor argument nor any thing else but bare words in two or three Paradoxes for my conviction yet by a similitude I shall understand that our own Covenant-act is the primary condition of Gods Covenant In his Aphorismes he sayes It may seem strange but now a similitude shall render it familiar If a King saith he will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying of him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first right in him and his but for the continuance of her right is further requisite If we had had either Scripture or argument to have given us a first light then a Simile might have served for somewhat and come in as a garnish but being served in alone it may speak the Authors thoughts but never settle any in the truth And I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether the edge of it may not easily be turned against himself and whether when it is brought home it will not prove destructive to his own opinion I must therefore tell the Reader that our relation to Christ whilest on earth is more frequently expressed in Scriptures by espousals then marriages as we may see through the book of Canticles and Hos 2.14 2 Cor. 11.2 and that there is ordinarily a relation of men to God preceding faith that justifies Now Mr. Baxter is not so ill read in the Civill Law but that he knowes that there are sponsalia de futuro and sponsalia de praesenti Those God is pleased to take for his people that are his onely in the first relation and to honour them with priviledges to bring them on to the second Whereas he sayes Our Covenant principally is to receive nor is it onely de futuro but de praesenti I may answer first If our Covenant be to receive then it doth precede this receiving and secondly if he mean that it is our duty to receive Christ in present and not to delay the least moment of time I shall readily yield but in case he say that present profession and engagement to receive gives a people no title to any Covenant-relation before Christ be actually and savingly received I may well ask what we are to say to the whole body of Old Testament-Scriptures were not all Israel in Covenant were they not all visibly the people of the Lord are they not owned of God for such when they were at the worst and lowest How many thousands of Scripture-Texts may be brought to evince it Had they called themselves so and valued themselves as such on this account to be a people nigh unto the Lord and no people so nigh it might have been said to be their own vapour but when God gives them that testimony of honour and hath never done with it sure he would have us to believe it There is a first right therefore before that right in the similitude contended for and that is no other but a right of Covenant to be without God and without hope is the case of a meer heathen uncircumcised in the flesh Eph. 2.11 The state of visible relation is one step nearer than aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel do enjoy and yet too short of a state of salvation Mr. Baxter concludes By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduceth confusion about the Covenant and whether it be
spoken of and that is before Baptisme I have answered that this is the weakest of all Arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be an Hysteron Proteron and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose it rests upon him to prove that here is none 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetorick came to be talked on I think no such thing is here to be asserted So I should say Baptisme doth alwaies lead and Faith follow I onely said that all that can be collected hence is that in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptisme though as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists there is not one and the same kind of necessity which they confirm by the words that follow If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order then he must say that Faith alwaies precedes and never followes after Baptisme against the common observation that sometimes it precedes sometimes it accompanies sometimes it followes and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptized man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying And then he may preach in England to build up Converts but not to convert or at least when he hath converted he must baptize his convert the seal is null that goes before a Covenant I gave instance in that place of Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience followes upon Baptisme affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation or at least a principall branch of it and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede but a necessity that it should follow In which I did not imply that a man before Baptisme may not believe as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary but that it tyeth him to the faith at least to follow after Mr. Baxter saith I gratefully accept your Concession that justifying faith is that restipulation which is your Minor that is justifying faith professed and thence I conclude that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant and so without it God is not in Covenant with men It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good Who knowes not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation And that this Restipulation is an essentiall part of the Contract called stipulation This being past doubt it followes that justifying faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismall Covenant They onely it seems that have read the Civil Law can see a necessity of this Conclusion I and other Divines call this promise Restipulation and I though other Divines do not say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise And so the Promise being essential Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called or that I so intended it then this is a true Proposition justifying faith is a Promise can any think that I ever intended so egregious a peece of affected nonsense Justifying faith with me is the thing promised or that to which we restipulate Who that hath read Rhetorick or heard any man speak doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant Then you hit the nayl on the head and till that is done you have done nothing Arg. 3. reviewed Mr. Baxters third Argument is That faith to which the promise of remission and justification is made must also be sealed to or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition in foro dei of the title to the seal But it is onely solid true faith which is the condition of the promise of remission In what sense faith is the condition of the Promise Therefore it is that which gives right in foro Dei to the seal To this I have answered faith is not sealed to but remission of sins or Salvation upon condition of faith and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments I shall God willing make this more evident that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our priviledges and not duties and I referre the Reader thither When I say a professor of faith may ingage to a lively working faith I am followed with this Dilemma You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead not working faith If the first it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith and he onely ingageth so to believe hereafter For if he professe to have it already then he can ingage onely to the continuation and not to the inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a dead not working faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptisme to believe lively for the future inceptivè and to believe for the future with a working faith I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature and then answer He that thus professeth to have a lively faith either professeth it knowingly so that he is assured that he speaks the truth or with haesitations doubts and fears so that he questions the truth of all that himself saies The latter doubtlesse can give no title according to Mr. Baxter For a man to professe and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession can give no such title as is required if the former be intended that every man professing must know the truth of his profession then none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe have any right to Baptisme and then you see how high we are gone Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possesse their places in the Ministery much more of all that enter into Christianity For a direct answer I therefore say It is not profession to say that we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with ingagement to it that gives this title There followes You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptisme saying Lord I believe that thou art God alone and Christ the onely Redeemer and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people and that the world flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee but at present there are lusts so deare to me that I will not forsake them for thee
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow theâ—efore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only Râ—le of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as thâ— Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when thâ— sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muâ—t now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who
men of his interest should be received then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it and given him admission to it And what he did according to the mind of God as a Minister by a Minister may be done And to pronounce him at that time that he received it such that had no right for admission yet to admit him were such a precedent as Christ would not have given Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account that the knew what was in them Joh. 2.23 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God that men of that standing should partake of it If it be objected that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation being a reprobate I answer respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed he was in capacity of improvement The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiours and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will and not to that which is in Gods secret purpose Let us summe up the argument briefly into this form Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification and not to destruction Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joynt strength applyed in power to the understanding may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms conditions and propositions of the Covenant may work men of profession of faith to faith saving and justifying may work a man that is onely in name the Lords to be truely and savingly his This none can deny if Law and Gospel cannot do it in the way of instruments and ordinances appointed of God there is no way on earth in which it can be done But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding Therefore the conclusion followes that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified The Assumption is clear that in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospell There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out Christ made a curse and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin even all that which sinne according to the Law did demerit There are sins bruises transgressions wounds There we have the summe and substance of the Gospel held out Christs death for remission of sinne laid open There we have Christ a curse which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression There we have Christ a sacrifice which is that which the Gospel doth promise all brought home and applyed to the understanding of the communicant Fourthly That which is high in the aggravating of sinne to the conscience and clear in holding out the pardon of sinne may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying This is clear which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sinne in its aggravations and Gospel tenders for the removal of it The Assumption that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated and the removal of it held out is also clear and may easily per partes be proved 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced Zach. 12.10 They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his onely sonne and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that is in bitternesse for his first-born and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers and Elders met in the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication where speaking to those that joyn with them at the Lords Table pag. 104. You must so remember Christ as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him Christ is presented in the Sacrament as a broken Christ his body broken and his blood poured out And the very breaking of the bread understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him Was he crucified for you and will you crucify him by your sins And besides the breaking of the bread is not onely ordained to be a motive unto brokennesse of heart for sin but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto And pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramentall as to find power comming out of Christ to subdue all your sins and iniquities as the diseased woman felt vertue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament to heal all the sinful issues of our soules there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified And pag. 106. You must continue in remembring Christ in the Sacrament till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world and all worldly things Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world and when he was crucifying the whole world was in darknesse and obscurity and he is propounded in the Sacrament as a persecuted broken crucified Christ despising and being despised of the World And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death you will find vertue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world and all worldly things And pag. 107. Cease not remembring Christ till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in humility is one of the chiefest Matth. 11.29 Learn of me for I am humble And Christ in the Sacrament is presented as humbling himself to the death of the crosse for our sakes And what a shame is it to remember an humble Christ with a proud heart The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental when sanctified is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts And pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts when you are at the Sacrament For as Christ in the Ministery of his Word preacheth to the ear and by the ear conveyeth himself into the
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
he saies He speaks not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but c. I think he ought to speak so of it when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification In his sense I suppose it can be no instrument of justification an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument but in this case justification is before-hand wrought and therefore according to the proverb it cannot do that which is done before it comes for the truth of this let Mr. Baxter speak The accepting Christ in this Covenant is true justifying faith if an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justfied pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed and so is indeed justified and the grant of the Covenant is an instrument for justification of a justified person I am demanded Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris vel legis as distinct from justificatio judicis vel per sententiam And I demand whether of these justifications do procede If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis then the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not In case it follow after then it is onely a manifestation or declaration of it of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter And this considered it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks ef the Covenant onely as eyed of God and not applyed to us and then indeed it is no instrument of God whereby he justifies but his rule according to which he justifies Pardon of sin is a relative change yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work and so are instruments of pardon dispositivè as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks as well as declarativè I added in my Treatise Forgivenesse of sin is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.38 but it is to those that believe that are justified faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it And here comes in my second charge mentioned I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification I answer Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists and according to Mr. Baxter farre more seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he sayes not onely of justifying faith but as justifying yet he is no Romanist 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romanists distinction of a first and second justification which first justification Protestants onely allow according to Scripture to be called justification and that there is according to them no ingrediency of any other grace but faith and no merit in faith but all of grace for which he may see Mr. Crandons first parallell Part 2. pag. 215. It followes If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of justification and can this be unlesse it be also said that we made the Gospel then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of donation But how this can follow I think few but himself can see It will onely follow that the Gospel cannot justifie us without us that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli Ser. 15. will follow He that made thee without thee doth not justifie thee without thee It will follow that somewhat is to be done by us without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious Qui ergo fecit te sine te non justificat te sine te and how the second can follow that the Gospel is our instrument of justification I desire to know If Naamans dipping himself seven times in Jordan rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosie will it follow that Jordan was his instrument whereby he cured himself If the Angels moving on the water Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entred will it then follow that it was either the Angels or his instrument that first entred and not rather the instrument of God onely And to his question moved Can this be unlesse we made the Gospel If we should grant that it is our instrument will this follow Can no man use an instrument unlesse he first made it Peter it seems was no fisher but rather a Cutler and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear or else he could not have used it as his instrument Neither followes it that God and we are concauses It would onely follow that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give That of Austin will follow which immediately is added in the place quoted Ergo fecit nescientem justificat volentem tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua He therefore that made thee unwilling doth not justifie thee unwilling yet he doth justifie thee lest it should be thine own righteousnesse It will then follow that in self-denyal renouncing all self-righteousnesse we humbly accept what God of grace doth give After these supposed absurdities we have a list of subtle questions Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny as appears in his words that follow and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2 1 Thess 2.13 before mentioned here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification and by the help of him and light borrowed from his illuminate notions I shall aym somewhat at it to answer his respective to Justification If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God and from faith then God must convey efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification and till I have his answer why should I be so vain as to confute his There followes Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weaknesse as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut fiat potens efficax Quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter Aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium For answer
bigger then the Earth that â—e may call an opinion That which by reason we can certainly conclude we may call knowlege but that which we believe upon the credit of him that speaks it that is faith or belief This is so of the being of faith that without it there is no faith neither humane nor divine The Nobleman of Israel 2 Kings 7.1 Zachary the father of John Baptist Luk 1.18 Martha John 11.39 40. were all of them herein faulty This Truth of God was above their reason and therefore they suspended their faith in it We believe not what man saith when we do not assent to the truth of that which he speaks and we believe not what God speaks further then we assent to the truth of his Word Thus far the devills go having sufficient experience of the Truth of God and thus far and further we must go if we be in the faith Now this assent hath these two properties first It is Firm secondly Vnlimitted absolute 1. Firm. and full First firm Not alwaies free from assaults and doubtings Satan and our own hearts will muster up objections but such that yeilds not but withstands and overcomes doubtings holds firm to truth when all means are used to wrest from it Herein Eve failed God had said The day that ye eat ye shall surely die Satan brought such objections that upon his word she believed that she should procure good to her self 2. Absolute and unlimited and not incur evil by eating and so yielded to unbelief upon Satans reasonings As our assent must be firm so also absolute and unlimitted to the whole of all that God speaks such was the faith of Paul Acts 24.14 Believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets and Christ blames the two Disciples that their faith was not such Luk 24.25 How little honour do we give to man when sometimes we give credit and belief to that which he saies because we see reason and probability of truth in his words and at other times call all to question that he speaks such is the honour that many give to God when they pick and choose in believing as they do in obeying Promises must be believed in the way of Gods tender of them with limit to the conditions annexed to them Threatnings must be believed upon those grounds that they are menaced commands must be believed that is Gods soveraignty in them the justice and equity of them and a necessity of our yielding to them As it must be an assent to the whole Word of God So it must be an assent to it in that sense as God propounds it The Word in that sense that it gives of it self is the Word of God and not otherwise when we put our sense upon it we make it our word not Gods Where we must not condemn all for unbelief that are any waies subject to mistakes or that through weaknesse of judgment do not apprehend every thing as it is Willing and wilfull wrestings of the Word are here spoke against when carnall reasonings out of singularity vain-glory carnall contentment hope of gain and admiration of men are set up against the Truth of God if we should go no further in our scrutiny how many would be found unsound in the faith Have we not those that are so far from any close adherence to truth tendred that every wind tosseth them to and fro and drives them up and down that hold no longer in an opinion then a mimick gallant keeps in a fashion and change their faith as these do their dresse Have we not those that believe where they list and that is where it may serve for their advantage or repute but where they list not they can deny all faith to any truth that God speaks deny it they wil where they see it tends to their danger No swearer no drunkard no adulterer no extorting oppressor c. can believe the truth of God in his Word but he must with it believe his own condemnation 2. In the will with the affections But faith is a work of the whole soul and implyes the will with the affections as well as the understanding Faith is exprest in Scripture by our coming to Christ Joh. 6.35 And that is a work of the will and not of the mind of the judgement and not of the affections It is called a receiving of Christ Joh. 1.12 this is also done by the will and affections Consideration and deliberation are works of the understanding but choise and imbracing are works of the will when the woman of Samaria Joh. 4.29 saith Is not this the Messiah There was matter of consideration and deliberation there was work for the understanding to be imployed in whether he were to be acknowledged indeed the Messiah But now to leave all and follow Christ to forsake all and cleave to him This is matter of choise and work for the will and affections whose work it is to take or refuse Therefore as faith is set out in Scripture by words implying knowledge and assent so likewise by words implying affiance trust rolling casting a mans self on the Lord. Faith then takes Christ and cleaves to him in all of those relations in which a Christian stands to Christ takes Christ and lookes for no other delight or comfort takes Christ and will not indure any other Lord or commander takes Christ and lookes for no other helper takes Christ and lookes for no other Saviour takes Christ as a Saviour and trusts in him takes Christ as an husband and delights in him takes Christ as a Lord and obeyes him Thus according to the several offices that Christ does there are several actings of faith for to answer The great work of Christ was to give his soul an offering for sin to shed his blood to take away our guilt there faith answers and it is not alone said that they that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses which might imply no more then a qualification of the person to be justified but it is further said that Christ is set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 which plainly denotes the instrument whereby we have our interest When there are many acts of faith that which respects his blood alone doth justifie Christ is set up as a King and hath all things put in subjection under him Here faith yields up all to him and consents as to be saved so to be ruled by him Christ in his Kingly power protects as well as commands as he holds out a Scepter so he is a shield Faith flyes unto him for shelter and so receives and quenches all Satans darts Christ is given as an head to his body the Chuch not onely for command but for quickning and enlivening power to supply with vitall energies every part and member Here faith answers and takes in from Christ the Spirit by the promises
Lastly as Durand Reas 4 doth observe The whole that is done in it speaks its own use and signification and the use and signification of Sacraments wholly depends upon divine institution They have nothing that beares any colour to say for the Sacramentality of it save that Text of the Apostle Ephes 5.32 where the Apostle having illustrated that love which is due from the husband to the wife by that similitude of the love of Christ to the Church concludes This is a great Mystery and having spoke both of the union betwixt Christ and the Church and between man and his wife to prevent all mistakes he addes but I speak of Christ and his Church so that first we have not the word Sacrament there but the word Mystery which by Bellarmines own confession is not elsewhere in Scripture to be understood of any Sacrament and Cajetan on the words as Amesius observes warnes the prudent Reader to observe that we have not from Paul in this place that Marriage is any Sacrament So that neither word nor thing is found in Scripture that Marriage is a Sacrament Every one of these might have born a large discourse as is well known to all that are verst in these controversies But so many having spoken so fully to them though I was unwilling intending a Treatise of the Sacraments wholly to omit them yet was resolved that the Reader might not be overburthened to be as brief as possible in them FINIS A POSTSCRIPT TO REVEREND and LEARNED Master BAXTER IN WHICH These following QVESTIONS are friendly debated Whether faith in Christ quà Lord be the justifying act Whether mans Evangelicall personall righteousness be here perfect Whether the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Whether Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions or mans in the proper conditionall Covenant Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity With an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about severall things in reference to Justification Sicut meritum Christi non potest apprehendi ad justitiam salutem nisi per organon fidei divinitùs ad hoc ordinatum ita si fides alibi quà m in suo proprio principali objecto quaerat Justificationem non invenit nec accipitillam Chemnit exam concil Trident de fid Justif pag. 159. LONDON Printed by S. G. for Abel Roper at the Sign of the Sun against Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1655. THE INTRODVCTION REverend Beloved and much Honoured I have received your Apologie according to your appointment from your Stationer for which I return you hearty thanks as for the gift it self so for the pains that you have taken to rectifie me where in your judgement I have publickly stept aside An error in Divine things if it stand alone without addition of further aggravations is not light Truth being of such divine excellency that no pensil can draw out all deviation from it into opposite error must needs answer in black deformity and darkness But when it is not simple error but joyned with endeavour to engage others it is far above it self in fowlness To reduce a brother therefore not onely erring but thus erring must needs be an high acceptable office of love But in this I need to do no more than to say over to you what you have said to me in your first and second page which you stile your Prologue In this if we both speak our hearts thoughts we are one And I wish that in all other things there were a like unity in judgement and the time I hope with some confidence is near at hand that all mists and clouds will be so dispelled that we shall arrive at perfect union And as for infinite other reasons so for this glory is infinitely desireable In order to a right understanding between us I must acquaint you that your first words after your Christian salute have their mistake though not much material whether upon mistake of my words when I last saw you in Shrewsbury or fayling in memory I cannot determine I told you not that I had then sent to the Press a treatise of the Covenant◠but wished you indeed not to be offended in case I should in such a treatise publish somewhat in the way that you mention In which I do not barely oppose my memory to yours but also the witness of the Reverend Brother whom you know was then present together with the computation of time which speaks it to me to be above contradiction It was May 3. that we spake together as I well know by the errand that I had at that time into those parts and my book saw not the light till towards the end of November following and yet made speedy haste after it went out of my hands I was glad of the opportunity as of a brief discourse of some things as the little scantling of time would bear so also to understand your mind in the thing already mentioned before any further proceeding that there might be no unbrotherly difference which at that time you express'd with all possible candor for my encouragement in that way Yet you now complain that I have given the first onset and so put you upon a necessity of this way of dealing against me which you mention in your Preface Apologetical and in this Prologue and more at large in the Preface of your Confession preferring in your judgement a more private Collation and enquiry into things before this publique way of appearing in the Press And indeed I had it in my thoughts to have written to you before I had any setled resolution at all any more to have appear'd in publique had done some little that way as soon as your Aphorisms came to light which was more than three years and an half before my treatise of the Covenant was published as may be seen comparing the dates of either but after-thoughts took me off And indeed I see no cause of Repentance considering the issue of things between you and others After so much pains of writing on both sides I do not hear that any of those eminently learned men which you say from most parts of the land have taken this way to impart their animadversions have at all prevail'd to change your mind Neither do I hear that any of your replies have wrought any change in them for satisfaction And in the mean space those elaborate writings on both sides are buried in your Study and theirs and no other but your selves have any benefit at all Only we have their complaints such is humane frailty that their names suffer in your publick writings As to the Charge against me for making the first onset I had not appear'd at all had I not upon other occasions which may be seen in my Preface been put upon it to come out in open view And how far I stand guilty of that in which I
to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazâ—n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâ—ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
worthily be rank'd in the first place amongst those that you thus honour As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith in answer to Bellarmines first question What that faith is that is required to justification he sayes in the name of Protestants (a) Hoc ipsum vel imperitè vel sophistice in quaestionem vocatur Nam 1. Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant 2. Non tam quaeritur quae aut quid fides quae justificat quam quae sit ratio quâ propriè dicitur justificare This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question giving in his reasons 1. Saith he There are many things required to justification which do not justifie 2. It is not so much enquir'd into what that faith is which do's justifie as in what notion it is that it is said to justifie And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine he saith in the same page that (b) Observandum est nos non restringere fidem illam quae justificat sed tantum quà justificat ad promissionem misericordiae Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Protestants do not restrain the faith which justifies but faith as it justifies to the promise of mercy Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure And together with it that which may be seen largely in Chemnitius enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith in his Examen Concil Trident mihi pag. 159. under this head Quid verè propriè sit fides justificans quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi quando pronunciat impium fide justificari I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good that faith in Christ quà Lord doth not justifie 1. That which the types under the Law appointed for attonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for attonement expiation and reconciliation This cannot be denied These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object being School-masters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith that serves for this work But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as Sacrificing sometimes as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it 2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto That our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat. 26.28 This is my blood in the new Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one The types of the Law and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper lead both of them to his blood for this reason of attonement and forgiveness There was an old Testament enjoyn'd of God in which the people in convenant were sprinkled with blood Exod. 24.1 c. commented upon by the Apostle Heb. 9.20 c. That blood and this cup lead to Christs blood for forgiveness and in them the death of Christ is remembred A broken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received 3. As the Spirit of God guides faith so it must go to Christ for propitiation and attonement This needs no proof The Holy Ghost is the best leader But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for attonement whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ro. 3.25 It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat We are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 And faith is our way of interest and thither the Spirit of God by the Apostle leads our faith as we see in the words mentioned I am checkt indeed by you because I say through faith in his blood not faith in his command quo jure nescio say you My reason or warranty is because I durst not adde to the Apostles directory when he leads us one way I dare look no other If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation without further direction under what notion our faith should have look'd upon him It had been enough to have said that he is our propitiation but distinctly pointing out his blood and faith in his blood I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither and only hither especially seeing I find him still in the same language Rom. 5.8 9. God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of our sins Ephes 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For as much as ye know that we were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without blemish You demand Will you exclude his obedience resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvail at the question If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but merit He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and command then I can blood and sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to rule as of blood to make attonement You yet tell me It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions and tell us of any other thing either ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further 4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by vertue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his obedience as a Servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before the Lord as righteous Rom. 15.19 By the obedience of
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
as you have laid them down The first of your seven is If no man be called Righteous by the Law of works but he that perfectly obeyeth so as never to sin then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Lawy But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent Here I would desire that you would explain your self in what sense any Law can call any particular man Righteous The Law laies down generall Rules and makes not particular application to this or that person If you mean that no man hath the denomination of a righteous or just person upon his observation of the precepts of the Law you must except Zachary and Elizabeth and all other which in Scripture have the title of just or righteous I pray you consult Calvin on Luke 1.6 (o) Neque enim est haec definitio negligenda justos esse qui vitam suam formant ad legis praecepta Dominus quia illis peccata non imputavit sanctam illorum vitam licet imperfectam justitiae titulo dignatus est Neither is this definition saith he to be neglected that they are just that frame their lives according to the precepts of the Law and afterward adds Because the Lord doth not impute unto them sin he honours their holy life though imperfect with the title of righteousness See also Rivet on Gen. 6.9 Exercit. 5.2 * Perfectio verò inchoata per omnes partes in nobis etsi non absoluta per gradus est sincera 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum totam legem obedientia sive sincerum ac serium studium obediendi Deo secundum omnia ejus praecéta Perfection begun in us in all parts though not compleat in degree is a sincere and undissembled obedience according to the whole Law or a sincere and serious endevour of obeying God according to all his Commandments God in the Covenant of Grace looks upon and accepts a sincere endeavour of ordering our conversation according to the precepts of works All the rest of the arguments carry it to a deniall of justification by the Law which is far from me to go about to assert but touch not upon denomination of righteous or righteousness upon a sincere endeavour of conformity to the Law Who knows not but that the Law curseth upon the least trangression were there not a redress in the Gospel yet men of Gospel-grace to whom sin is not imputed are denominated righteous upon their sincere though weak endevour of conformity to the Law (p) Potest homo in se justus denominari ab illâ qualitate justitiae quae est quantumvis imperfecta modo vera at non potest constitui justificatus coram Deo nisi ab illâ justitiâ quae omnes perfectionis numeros comprehendit A man may saith Davenant be denominated just (q) A man may be denominated just from that rule that will not denominate him justified in himself from such quality of righteousness which is true though it be imperfect but he cannot be constituted justified before God but from that righteousness which comprizeth all kind of perfection in it Davenant de Just habit pag. 342. * Mortui sumus legi diversâ ratione Nam legi ceremoniali ratione necessaria observationis justificationis condemnationis morali vero non ratione justitiae seu observationis sed justificationis condemnationis We are dead to the Law saith Gomarus upon a severall account To the Ceremoniall Law as to necessary observation justification and condemnation To the Moral Law not as to righteousness and observance but as to justification Gomarus in Galat. 2.19 So that the whole of these seven Syllogisms may be put to the other thirty one concerning unbaptized persons believing in Christ Jesus There is not one of the Conclusions that touch me I say not that the Law judges righteous or that men by the Law are judged righteous but that God in the Covenant of Grace cals weak conformity to the Law righteousness and men of such conformity righteous Davenants distinction of denomination of a just man and a justified man is a sufficient answer to all these arguments SEC III. The Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousnesse IN the next place you take me up for saying I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Morall Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule And make it your businesse to Catechize me better And thereupon you say distinguendum est And so we have a multitude of distinctions too many to write out with this Elogy upon them I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond dispute But I confesse I cannot be induced to be of your mind Mr. Brs. distinctions discuss'd I think the solidity of some of them may well be disputed and the necessity of most of them as to our businesse wholy denyed I am to seek how the preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and the preceptive part of the Law of nature now used by Christ as his own Law which is one of your distinctions do differ Whether Christ and Moses in holding out a Law of nature stand at any such distance may at least be disputed though perhaps when others see it not you may be able to conclude it I as yet neither know any detraction from or addition to the preceptive part of the Law of nature by Christ I think there was neither any abolition addition or diminution respective to the Law thus considered made by our Saviour I do not yet see reason so much as to recede from that opinion that this Law as delivered by Moses is binding to Christians If you be able to conclude the negative yet I know that as it hath been so it may be still disputed And when we are speaking of the rule of Righteousnesse or obedience which is the line and thread according to which our actions should be squared under which you justly comprehend the prohibition as proeceptum de non agendis I see no necessity of talking either of a rule of reward or punishment or a rule of the condition of the reward or punishment which is another of your distinctions These three last Rules if they be true Rules may here as to this businesse be very well over-ruled They are not at all essentiall to a Law as comming neither within the direction for duty nor obligation to duty but only serve ad bene esse to quicken our obedience and to withold from transgression As to the Promise God might have commanded us to work and never have told us of any pay and The Punishment is upon supposall of fayling in duty And if you thus bring them in as accessary parts of the Law yet I see no imaginable reason to speak of them as Rules unlesse it be such as God hath proposed to himself in his way of distributive Justice They
Rome in it Page 227 Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith and how before circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions laid down Page 29 c. Infant-Baptisme Severall benefits of it Page 185 c. See Baptisme Infirmities Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page 392 Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid. Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page 393 Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid. See Sin Institution A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page 58 Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly usefull Page 59 All Sacramentall rites must be of divine institution Instrument Faith The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page 437 Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith as in other actions so in justification Page 444 Whether the action of the principall cause and of the instrument in Morall operations is alwayes one Page 445 The unanimous consent of Protestant writers that Faith is an instrument ibid. c. Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page 438. 464 Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page 441 Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ Page 443 Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished Page 448 Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page 460 It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page 448. 487 The grant of the New Covenant is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page 466 Concauses instrumentall have efficacy one from another Page 470 Instruments Cooperative or Passive Page 474 Whether the word be a passive instrument or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid. An instrumentall effiâ—iency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page 486 Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 485 Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page 628 c. See Faith Justification The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a reall Page 447 God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page 449 In justification of man God acts not without man Page 446 Quaeres put in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumentall in the work of justification Page 478 Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page 489 Justification by Gospell grant and by the sentence of the Judge how they differ Page 556 557 Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse Page 558 The Father appoints the termes of justification and salvation Page 559 Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page 576 Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme Page 163 c. Severall arguments vindicated Page 120 c. Exceptions examined Page 143 Additionall arguments to prove it Page 161 Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page 135 136 None able to Baptize if justifying faith onely give admission Page 160 Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Objections answered Page 262 K. Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page 500 Knowledge distinguished Page 501 See Ignorance L. Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Law Morall Arminians Socinians and Papists oppose the perfection of the Morall Law Page 601 Authorities of Protestant writers for the perfection of the Morall Law Page 602 Arguments evincing the perfection of the Morall Law Page 603 Objections answered Page 605 There is no sin that is not condemned in the Morall Law Page 603 In what sense the preceptive part of the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page 605 c. Actions are denominated good or bad from the Law onely Page 613 Men are denominated really and not equivocally righteous that imperfectly obey the Morall Law Page 614 The Law commanding duty and the end of the duty are not opposite but subordinate Page 614 Law nature What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page 24 No Sacraments appointed of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. Scripture silence a probable argument Page 26 Jesuites arguments herein examined ibid. The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and as used by Christ whether they differ Page 600 Leiturgy Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page 308 Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. c. 1. As to the work it self Page 308 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page 309 Life What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page 11 Not barely an animall life ibid. c. The tree of life had not any naturall power to answer its name Page 12 Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The position at large discussed Page 555 c. Lords Supper See Sacraments Supper Lunatick Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 M. Man His first originall is in sin Page 363 Arguments evincing it Page 364 In mans restitution his nature must be healed and his guilt removed Page 366 The healing of his nature and the removall of guilt is the work of Christ Page 366 Manna Whence it hath its name Page 523 The time it continued with Israel Page 524 Miraculously provided ibid. A fable concerning it ibid. Of a Sacramentall nature Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Meanes Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page 17 Objections answered Page 17 18 Mediatour See Christ Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page 572 Marriage The Matter Page 540 Form Page 540 Minister Page 540 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 541 Minister Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page 251 Inconveniences objected against it answered Page 262 A Ministers prudence in this work to see with more eyes then his own Page 272 Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid. To make scrutiny into mens knowledge with all tenderness Page 273 Not to refuse but upon known crimes ibid. When he cannot in this do what he would he is to do what he is able Page 274 Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministeriall function Page 277 Whether Ministeriall dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page 277 c. Gospell order transgrest when Sacraments are not dispenced by a Ministeriall hand Page 278 Doctor Abbots and Mr. Hookers judgement in it ibid. Mixt. Lawfull to communicate in mixt congregations Page 314 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Morall Perfection or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page 592 Duties naturally Morall bind all Page 195 Where a positive command is given there is a Morall tye to obedience ibid See Law
and received by a Whale and after three dayes and three nights cast safe upon the shore Satan must set up his Arion and make him famous in his Historians and Poets A skilfull Harper of Greece having by excellency in musick gained a great summe of money in Italy and Sicilia returning to his own Countrey with his treasure Mariners with whom he agreed for his Fare greedy of his money cast him into the Sea a Dolphin delighted with his musick carries him safe and landed him at Taenarus See the relation and application elegantly brought home to this purpose by Dr. Abbot Lect. 15. on Jonah making notable observations of Satans policy In case the Narrative carry any truth in it by his wonders so far as his art and power can reach Satan then makes it his business to disgrace Gods miracles and cast dishonour upon them by his imitation though he falls farre short of the Originall as he there shewes and followes him as little Ascanius his Father with very unequal steps And in case we take it for a meer fiction which is his judgement upon it his art is no lesse observable to discredit as farre as in him lyes the writings of Scriptures When this miracle of Jonahs shall be Preached and published in the world Arions fable shall be produced that like faith may be yeelded to either of both See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Pag. 131 132. Where this thing in many particulars is enlarged And the more high the wayes of Religion are raised of God in a Spiritual way the more easie it is for Satan who is a spirit to delude The Spirit is the great Gospel-promise to be poured out on all flesh that is on men of all sorts Joel 2.28 God will be served in types and shadowes no longer but in Spirit and truth Joh. 4.23 When the Jewes gloried of Circumcision as that which did denominate them a people of God and distinguished them from all other Nations and urged the necessity of it to salvation the Apostle tells us that they are the Circumcision that worship God in Spirit Phil. 3.3 Satan now on the other hand can take the hint and heighten his way in a destructive manner to Gospel wayes All outward Ordinances shall now be decryed as formes and beggarly rudiments and with Circumcision in the letter laid aside though they be Ordinances of the Spirit it self in which the Spirit expresses its power and efficacy 1. The written Word which was dictated by the Spirit 2 Pet. 1.19 is the sword of the Spirit by which it exercises his power on the soul must be laid aside as a dead letter and over carnal The Ministers of the Word that great gift from the Fathers right hand Ephes 4.11 set over the flocks by the holy Ghost Act. 20.28 on this pretence are to be cast off with Moses and Aaron taking too much upon them when all the Congregation is holy notwithstanding for a real confutation when this Spirit was first given in glory it came upon the heads of his Ministers in forme of tongues fiery cloven Act. 2.3 To let all know is that great appearance that was there that their tongues are sanctified of God to Preach the Word in power and life to all Nations And as the gifts of the Spirit encreased so the Ministers of the Spirit were multiplyed and that very title and name given Ministers of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 And the mind of Jesus Christ made known that these in a peculiar order distinct from other men are set apart to preach the Gospel as the Priests under the Law in a peculiar order were to wait at the Altar 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Upon the same pretence Sacraments must be laid aside the Baptisme of the Spirit is pleaded for the overthrow of the Baptisme of water Though the Apostle that first spake by the Spirit after it was given in glory doth argue the clean contrary Act. 10.47 Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we They that have the Spirit will be raised in zeal for the honour and establishment of every Ordinance of God by the Spirit the more spiritual men are the more care they will take to advance the Word the Ministers of the Word Sabbaths Sacraments Let us then observe his imitations his falsifications He vents doctrine of his own sets up wayes of his own that carry a resemblance of Gods wayes And similitude is mater erroris we shall never heed them as long as we know they are the Devils but when he transformes himself into an Angel of light and puts the stamp of God upon his own coyn we must not be ignorant of his sleights but to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evill CHAP. III. Whether there were any Sacraments from the fall to the institution of Circumcision THe next consideration of Sacraments is in mans fallen condition under a Covenant not of works but grace not for mans preservation in life but his restitution to life A further distribution of Sacâ—aments And these are to be distinguished according to Gods way of dispensation of us Covenant to his people which is wont to be done into three periods The first is from the fall till Abraham or unto the time that God entered Covenant with him and his seed which Suarez saith according to the common account doth end at the giving of the Law by Moses when the old Law began yet Circumcision which was in use long before the Law continuing the same under the Law he determines the law of nature at that time when Circucision began The second from Abraham till Christ The third from the first comming of Christ in the flesh till the second comming of his to judgement The first juncture of time hath usually been known by the time of the Law of nature The second the time of the Old And the last the time of the New Covenant Why the first of these should bear the name of the Law of nature I can read of none that have given satisfaction The phrase should seem to imply that then men had no more light then that of nature for their guide in the wayes of God But this is evidently false God did not then begin by way of supernatural revelation to speak to men in the world Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae Tom. 3. Disput 4. Sect. 1. taking upon him to answer the question hath much to amuse the Reader nothing to satisfie him he sayes a Lex naturae intelligitur dictamen rationis non solum ex naturali sed etiam ex supernaturali lumine ortum The law of nature is the dictate of reason arising not onely out of natural but supernatural light And in ihat sense the Gospel is the Law of nature Concerning this space of time whatsoever is the period of it much enquiry is made whether there were any Sacraments at all instituted of God and enjoyed
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
an one sees bread and wine but what they mean he knowes nothing nor any proportion between sign and thing signified or what the Ministers tender or his own receiving speaks to him These may perhaps have some blind devotion towards this Sacrament which Popish Schoolmen judge sufficient if not obstructed with mortal sin by reason of the Churches custome to receive it and some high opinion of some hidden and unknown vertue in it but it is not the least account that they can give of any necessity of it as a reason of their devotion towards it being scarce able to produce any command for it not knowing either the author time or end of the institution of it much lesse are they able to understand any need their soules have of it When the Corinthians came unworthily to the Lords Table all is laid upon this that they discerned not the Lords body I do not think that this is alone the ignorant mans sin All are in their measure guilty that do not considerately observe the glory of that Ordinance and of Christ in it A man of rude behaviour in a great Personages presence is told that he knowes not where he is or to whom he speaks when he well enough knowes and needs no information but doth not consider his distance but I say there is a necessity of that guilt in all that are ignorant All do not consider as they ought that know but none that does not know can consider This is to be done in remembrance of Christ which contains in it a calling into our thoughts all the work of his sacrificing himself for sin which is never done by the man that knowes not sin that knowes not the Law which is transgrest by sin that neither knowes the nature of sin nor the guilt of attending it that hath not any possible experimental sense of the danger of it and that remaines ignorant of Christ that redeems from it being able to give no account why the blood of Christ rather then the blood of any other should take away sin or how this death hath any such satisfying temitting vertue as to answer the Justice of God or merit his Grace neither knowing the Person of Christ in his humanity or Deity nor able to give account which Person in the Trinity took our nature and gave himself a ransom perhaps they will say that Christ was God and Man and as ready to say that the Father the Holy Ghost were God and man in like sort knowing as little or lesse of his offices what he does as a King or what he does as a Priest or what he does as a Prophet for his Church If you look on the Sacrament as a spiritual medicine they never knew their soules sicknesse nor ever understood any healing vertue in it If you look upon it as spiritual food for the strengthning of graces they never knew what hunger was or any strengthning vertue that here can be found look upon it as a spiritual cordial and they never had sense of sin to any swooning fit nor yet knew any restaurative vertue to be found in it look upon it as an heart-breaking soul-melting Ordinance as the Law never discovered to them the danger of sin so they see nothing here held out for the aggravation of sin They see what in course the Minister does and what the Communicants do But any end or reason why he or they do it they know nothing If the Word which is added to the element to make up a Sacrament were a bare Word of consecration to be muttered over the elements for their change so that the bare participation would serve turn as Physick works without any regard of the Patients knowledge or ignorance it were somewhat But the Sacrament as hath been said is a seal appendant to the Covenant of God and there is no improvement of it other wise then as the Covenant and the Promise is improved which must be known before it can be believed and applyed ignorance is a necessary barre to all benefit by it Though I account it the weakest thing in the world to make ignorance of this nature in the parent any just ground of non-admission of the Infant to Baptisme There is no necessity to conclude that the child who is born and to be bred in a vally of visions and interested in Ordinances able to save the soul should unavoidably be ever held with Parents in blindnesse yet I can Judge no otherwise but that it is a just barre to the parents when it is enough for the Infant to be passive in his first admission the parent must act and make use of his light for further growth and confirmation Some I know have said Who can tell but the person deemed to be ignorant and heretofore such indeed yet making addresse to the Lords Table and there hearing that mystery laid open and the use of those elements unfolded and cleared may in that very time receive competent instruction and be put into a capacity for this Ordinance knowingly to partake of it Whether or no there be any absolute possibility in this I will not determine I am sure there is little moral probability or possibility that a man that hath lived under Ordinances 20 30 40 50 perhaps more years and all of this time hath been confessedly ignorant and upon that account in an incapacity of this Sacrament for his profit that now at this time in a few minutes he should grow such a proficient as to fit himself for it And in case any such thing if not by miracle yet to wonder and amazement should happen it will be little losse for such a one to delay his actual participation for once that he may give an account of his profiting and upon a further progresse in knowledge have admittance the next time with greater satisfaction If any do desire to know the minimum quod sic where is the lowest pitch of knowledge that will put a man into a capacity of improvement of this Ordinance to his advantage this of necessity must be lest to ministerial Christian prudence in which there must be much of care and tendernesse not to make blear-eyednesse blindnesse nor a dim-light midnight darknesse where the wretchednesse of sin is known and Christ who is our remedy so understood that account can be given of his person and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved and the Sacrament so understood as that Christ crucified is there held but under those elements and tendred to believers I durst not passe a vote to have such a one excluded let this be got out of them in language of any kind such that we may discern that they know it though they can scarce expresse it in which also many circumstances should be prudently weighed as the natural ingeny of the party if ripe in other things it is an evidence of affected ignorance to be havy and dull here The means that they have
over to any such powers But exclusion from and admission to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency to which all are not promiscuously admitted as private Fasts and doubtful disputations Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence and not to the exercise of any juridick power Ergo. Reason 10 Lastly If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacrament and keep off from it then there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it a Gospel-Ordinance for it This is plain Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure as they are to speak so they are to act according to his will and pleasure known But no such Law no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures A command we have in the Gospel for administration of Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper and Covenant-interest is our Directory as you have heard to lead us to those that have fundamental interest in them But concerning exclusion of any thus enrighted there is nothing by way of Ordinance written Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction The Assumption is that which many will question It lyes upon them then to quote this Law to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ But instead of that I shall shew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all If any such be it is either in plain and full words exprest such as the Law given to Israel to put out of the Camp every leper and every one that hath an issue or is defiled by the dead Numb 5.1 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament or preparation to it or benefit received by it That there is no Ordinance in such plain full words needs not to be doubted In all that enquiry into this so much controverted businesse it would have been long since produced In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law or constituted Ordinance Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogismes though to his great disadvantage in that dispute of a Church-Covenant Where there is an Ordinance in power as there was for exclusion from the Passeover proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it and concerned in it But consequences will hardly prove the enacting and instituting of it I shall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this that parity of reason will set up no institution A good cause is wronged when Ordinances of this nature are pretended and cannot be produced and on the other hand when a Ministeriall prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalued which might supply it Let it be granted that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet a promiscuous admission will not follow when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it that some are not in a present aptitude for it There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification 1 Cor. 143 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to mens capacities so as to give milk to babes and children and strong meat to those of growth that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil is not done by any vertue of any specifick particular institution but the Ministers prudence VVhich prudence was exercised by Paul 1 Cor. 3.1 2. Heb. 5.12 by Christ himself Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to or exclusion from private Fasts or punctual direction who are to be called and received or who past by yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty concludes that it is not for novices in the faith And as it is a point of prudence not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment unwrought cloth some understand there will be a double inconvenience the weaknesse of the one will not bear the strength of the other and so the rent that was before will be made greater and the whole garment become uncomely and unsuitable nor yet to put new wine which is windy and working into old bottles the weaknesse of such a vessel being not able to bear it so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entred disciples Matth. 7.6 vindicated If any shall object that Text Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogs neither cast ye pearles before swine as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant and scandalous I shall desire the Reader for answer to take it into consideration whether it be not more agreeable to the Text to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general whether in a private or a publick way then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship Making it a peculiar Ordinance we shall run our selves upon inextricable difficulties Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way All whatsoever that is holy must there be understood and pearles and holy things are the same one being exegetical of the other holy things excelling other things as far as pearles excel acorns And by doggs and swine both which were unclean in the Law we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names they are both put for one 2 Pet. 1.21 and so the result of all is that no person in visible uncleannesse must taste of any thing that is holy From which it followes that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle when he said It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto doggs Matth. 15.26 So it will at no time be meet or lawfull to preach the Gospel to any heathen or impenitent and unclean Christian they being no other then dogs or swine and the Gospel the most precious of holy pearles but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence and observing the reason added lest they trample them under feet and turn again and rent you these absurdities and snares will be avoided and the result of all will be onely this that the holy things of God and rich Gospel-pearles are not to be communicated where there is no possible expectation of doing good But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselve which was the Apostles way of dealing when the Jewes were filled with envy contradicting and blaspheming Act. 13. and is
are likewise seals where there are like Sacramental expressions notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision and Abrahams acceptation of it that Circumcision was a seal so may we infer in like manner that other Sacraments are signs and seals Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abrahams Circumcision with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptisme Abraham believed and was justified upon believing and then received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being uncircumcised And the Eunuch did believe on Philips preaching and afterwards received Baptisme May we not well then say He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse that he had being yet unbaptized so we may say of Pauls Baptisme and the Jaylours upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptisme for the same reason Secondly It is demanded whether the Covenant of grace and promises of salvation be compleat valid and firm in themselves Object without these things annexed to them or whether they be meerly void and null in Law as Kings and mens Deeds and Charters without a seal to confirm them If incompleat infirm and invalid this is extreamly derogatory to the Covenant and therefore they are not properly seals Answ 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civill seals used by men in Charters and conveyances and seals of God put to his Covenant will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions are Ministers then no Ambassadors There is difference between servants of men and servants of God are Christians then no servants Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor because they do the office that seals do among men and if they do not per omnia quadrare as no metaphors do yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed it is sufficient Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors being sent of God to treat from him with a people as Ambassadors are sent of Princes notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadours come may treat or not treat at pleasure may give in Propositions as well as receive them when they to whom Gods Ministers are sent must give audience must take the Propositions delivered and not stand to Capitulate If Sacraments ratifie to us the promises of the Covenant That is enough to denominate them seales though wit could devise twenty differences And yet I read some differences assigned which I confesse I do not understand to be any differences at all 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law that mens grants are void altogether without a seal I have heard of Leases parol and Wills nuncupative which I am sure have no seal And seales sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke and lost and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments as seales may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word That will admit the dilemma Either his Word of Promise was true and firm without it or else which I am loath to speak subject to change The application is easie The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty and seven years famine by a double sign If there was truth in one we may argue the second needs not if untrue neither have cause to be heeded or regarded If we will undertake such kind of reasonings we should make no end 4. The Covenant is compleat full firm and valid in case we should never more then once hear it or never have any seal put to it nor any oath for confirmation yet our unbelief and distrust is such that we need ingeminations inculcations oaths seals and all from God to uphold us Object Thirdly It is yet demanded whether these seales are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of grace in the Old or New Testament as parts or parcels of them as seales are annexed To the Charter If yea then shew us to what Covenants and Promises and in and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of grace who do not actually receive these seales of grace when as your selves with all Orthodox Divines must grant that many who were never baptized and infinite who never received the Lords Supper are and may be saved and are made partakers of the Covenant and promises of grace without receiving or enjoying these seales of grace If no then how can these be termed seales of the Covenant and promises of grace which are not inseparably affixed to them as seales are to Charters since many receive the Covenant and promises of grace without these seales and other receive these seales without the Covenant or promises the benefit whereof they never enjoy Answ They are inseparably joyned respectu praecepti Sol. as being enjoyned of God and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary but necessary may be brought in to witnesse though not so respectu medii The Covenant may have its effect without them The Covenant is intire in it self without them They are not inseparable quoad esse yet they have their necessity though not simple and absolute quoad operari for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts God saw them necessary helpful and useful and therefore gave them in charge as many Scriptures witnesse and we of necessity must submit to them in order to obtain the end to which they serve and for which they are designed and appointed SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seales FIrst These are outward visible seales Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sacraments and priviledges of visible Churches and Church-membership committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense and apply to their people And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned the seal of the Spirit which is internal invisible proper onely to the elect regenerate reserved in the hand of God according to prerogative to give That these are external and visible needs no more then our eyes and that they are the priviledg of visible Churches and Church-members sufficient hath been spoken And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal both are for ratification and confirmation of the truth of Gods promises yet in a different way and different latitude They have the former that never reacht the latter and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter Secondly They are seales not to confirm any truth of God in it self or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions But
righteousnesse of faith as before was hinted in opposition to and to distinguish it from the righteousnesse of works required in the Covenant entered with man in his integrity and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law for the attainment of salvation That of works is called by the name of our righteousnesse Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.18 being to be done by our selves in our own persons as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law being required at our hands by the Law so that salvation gained this way is of our selves of works Ephes 2.8 9. This other is called the righteousnesse of faith in this text as also Phil. 3.9 Heb. 11.7 Faith being the hand that receives it of Gods free gift by grace it is called also the righteousnsse of God Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 Either as being the gift of God which that phrase seems to imply the righteousnesse which is of God by faith or else as being the work of Christ that is God So that salvation this way gained is of grace and the gift of God Ephes 2.8 These two are still opposed one to the other when one is followed the other is quit and left Rom. 10.3 They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God so also Rom. 10.5 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith 2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise that is the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith speaketh this language so that Sacraments sealing this righteousnesse they seal the whole of this Covenant 3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon and following Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse are here by the like figure comprized as appears by the Apostles words v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse This righteousnesse and blessednesse is made one and the same in those words of the Apostle Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant that brings man into Covenant with God is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought so that he is the whole of all that good that is comprized in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle Rom. 10.4 speaking of the error of the Jewes in going about to establish their own righteousnesse and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God he saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth that is finie consummans as Gomarus saith not consumens The end at which the Law aimed and not putting an end and period to it One Christ assumes to himself It becometh us to fulfil all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 The other he disclaimes Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil The Law calls us to righteousnesse but is not able to work it in us Christ hath done it for us and in our stead He is therefore called our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us in the Sacrament or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour there is a sufficient proof of this observation Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse and interesting us in this Covenant-promise They that will not allow that faith should be called an instrument of justification yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ that doth justifie And if either may be allowed as I do not doubt but that both will hold current this will hold that faith is considered here as an instrument and not as a work neither yet as an instrument of the soul producing any act beyond its self as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour but as receiving and taking in a gift from God This the Phrase of the Apostle Phil. 3.9 doth clear The righteousness of God by faith otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works yea when the words are the righteousnesse of faith the meaning must still be the righteousnesse of works as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging receives pay for working But these are made directly opposite one to the other and not confounded one with the other Rom. 10.5 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse but as an instrument applying Christ and interesting us in his righteousnesse These Positions being premised The Point proved the Observation may be easily proved that the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace and may be made good in an induction of particulars Circumcision the leading Sacrament of the old Covenant is expresly here spoken to and here we see what is the thing signified in it and sealed by it And in case we saw no more in it then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw that it was a note of distinction between them and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant yet we know that this distinction was grounded and founded in Christ By Scriptures The one stood in a visible relation to him and the other were strangers from him And the Apostle Col. 2.11 12. is full in the proof of it Having said that we are compleat in Christ enjoying him we want nothing it might be objected that we want the very leading Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God which was Circumcision The Apostle answers that in him we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ This Circumcision did figure Deut. 30.6 Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 29. And this is the work of Christ as we see in the Apostles words and therefore circumcision led to him For the following Sacrament of the Passeover if we look to the letter of the institution together with the explication given we shall find it
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
as signum voluntatis divinae being a manifestation of Gods pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner is sufficient So farre I shall willingly grant That which is to be asserted is 1. That this manifestation of Gods pleasure or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed and goes before those graces but now mentioned which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification This is plain The termes on which God will justifie must be understood before men can be brought to accept and come up to them 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made knowne and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the soul in an unjustified condition works to humiliation regeneration faith and by faith to justification 3. This manifestation of Gods pleasure being applyed to a man already humbled regenerate and in faith finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture Though Faith in nature goes before justification as the cause before the effect yet they are in that manner simul tempore that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition that so there should any intervall or time passe for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before to a regenerate believing soul serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition to make good to such a believing son or daughter that their sinnes are forgiven To apply these assertions to our present purpose This manifestation of Gods pleasure Gospel-grant or signum voluntatis divinae or whatsoever else we call it in the first consideration justifies not Going before that which is antecedent to Justification as we see it does it cannot justify In the second consideration it works indeed to justification But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter he will not accept of it for he saies he does not thus speak of it and in this consideration it justifies not without faith but works faith in order to Justification By this man is preached forgivenesse of sins and by him all that believe are justified In the third consideration it justifies not seeing it finds the work done to its hands and onely serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted So that all that can be said of this Gospel-grant donation or conveyance of right so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work is 1. To make known Gods mind on what termes justification may be attained 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it and finally to assure ratify and confirm it I shall the refore close this dispute if I may be allowed so to stile it in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place de justificat mihi pag. 797. octavo Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam Nam quotquot receperunt eum his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri Joan. 1.12 3.33 Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis 1. Docens Patefaciens Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum vel sicut veteres loquntur verbum vocale et visibile For as many as received him to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God John 1.12 and 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension speaking to mens capacity is called a cause instrumental And this instrumentall cause is twofold 1. Teaching Opening Offering and Exibiting the benefits of justification by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts And this is the Word of the Gospel and use of Sacraments or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible 2. Receiving or apprehending 2. Recipiens seu apprehendens quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur ita ut eorum participes reddamur Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem non ulias alias vel qualitates vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis whereby we apply those gifts to our selves which are offered in the Gospel that we may be made partakers of them There is therefore the hand of God as it were delivering and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered And testimonies are both observed and above explained that onely faith sand no other qualities or works in us is the medium of application SECT VI. A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith Christians must get assurance that they do act according to these principles so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles which I might urge respective to all that which is required of a man of Gospel-righteousnesse But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements I shall here onely urge it respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousnesse which is the grace of faith as we see in the Text which is confest to be the grace that receives Christ even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification If this righteousnesse which is our Justification be the righteousnesse of Faith then those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousnesse and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to those that believe those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear yet they come short of righteousnesse for life and salvation Giving assent to all Gospel-truths perhaps upon the principles of their education they may not onely have the repute but also enjoy all outward priviledges of believers yet wanting that work upon their will or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him they yet have not Christ nor life in him and therefore upon this account there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle Especially to see to their faith 2 Cor. 13.5 Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates In which words we see the Apostles exhortation and his reason annext The exhortation calls us to self-examination to a self-tryal an inquisitive experimental tryal The question to be put or thing to be proved or brought to upon
though the act of Justification do not work it 6. You say Faith can have no physicall causation or efficiency in Justification seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part c. 7. You say The legall formall interest or conducibility of faith towards Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense c. I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned 8. You say Scripture doth not say that you can find that faith justifies but that we are justified by faith and therefore you say you use the latter phrase rather then the former Ans This sure comes to fill up or make a number To say that we are justified by faith and not that faith justifies is a distinction without a difference We have warmth by Clothes but Clothes do not warm u◠Faith hath no lesse efficiency in Justification then in miraculous cures and yet in them faith made whole 9. You say Though ex parte Christi our severall changes proceed from his severall benefits and parts of his office exercised for us Yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one intire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the condition of our interest in Christ and his severall ben fits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the severall distinct respects that faith hath to its object c. Answ It is well that this is confessed on the part of Christ And I think you cannot shew why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship and make them known to us likewise That we should be taught in our Catechism which is so honoured with your approbation That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet in revealing to us by his word and Spirit the will of God for our Salvation That he executeth the office of a Priest in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfie divine Justice and reconcile us to God and in making continuall intercession for us That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself in ruling and defending us if our faith is not to observe which way these various priviledges accrue unto us Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them if we may not distinctly consider them Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing I think it may be proved that the Saints faith hath thus distinctly acted In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ in consideration of his soveraignty As Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 20.6 O Lord God of our Fathers art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen and in thy hands is there not power and might So that none is able to withstand thee c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself So foolish was I and ignorant I was as a beast before thee and presently addresses himself to God Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsell and bring me unto glory Psal 73.22 24. Under the burthen of sin to look to be clensed and purged To what else did the sacrifices tend and why else did David make his addresse Wash me thoroughly from my sin Deliver me from blood-guiltinesse Here I must lay down certain propositions in a more full way to explicate my self Propositions tending to explain the Authors meaning 1. That these severall functions of Christ must be distinguished but may not be divided He that is one is all Christ a Priest doth rule Christ a King doth merit and teach Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule But as a Priest he doth not rule as a King he doth not merit he is still one in all of these functions but acts under a distinct notion 2. There is a necessity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office to bring men into a Justified state and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification There must be light to lead men to Christ power to subdue men unto him as well as a price paid to reconcile them When the price of our redemtion is paid by Christ and not published it is like the hid treasure by which no man hath advantage Yea were it made known and by faith applied and brought home our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevaile against us Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Sathan When his right determines as it is with many unjust possessors he will yet keep his hold 3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship It yeelds to his soveraignty is guided by his counsell and rests in his attonement So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office at his Prophetick office as well as at his Priestly office but not as it justifies Quà teaching it looks upon him as a Prophet and learns Quà ruling it looks upon him as a King and submits to him Quà sacrificing and making atonement it looks upon him as a Priest and rests there for acquitall and discharge Where the Gospel distinguishes our faith is distinctly to act and look As to the charge laid against me I shall say little I had rather speak for truth then for my self You tell me that my expressions confound Christ and his actions with mans faith in our Justification or these two questions by what we are Justified ex parte Christi and by what we are Justified ex parte nostri For answer I only leave it to the Readers eyes whether I do not mention our faith as distinct from the blood of Christ in the words by you recited And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri The implyed sense which you accuse I shall further consider in some expresse reasons Now for your arguments we have ten in number and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question Your first concludes That Christ is not received as Christ Mr. Brs. Arguments examined if not as Lord-Redeemer which is a new phrase which I remember not that I have read before I read this Apology For Answer I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eys Redemption not Dominion Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gopel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed Your third concludes That to save from the power of sin is as true a part of a Saviours office as to save from the guilt which is not at all
speaking of agenda and not credenda and that here should be any rule de agendis but the precept determining of duty or that the promise There is a righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law or any act that goes along with the promise which what it means I cannot imagine should be any rule of our actions I never heard but from your mouth And for your inference That all our Actions and Habits comming short of the precept determining of duty no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity I should think all but your self would take to be a Non sequitur There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept which yet fals short of a full and perfect conformity Look I pray you upon Zacharie and Elizabeth that have this praise in the Gospel that they were both righteous before God and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination let the Text be consulted If walking in all the ordinances and commandements of God blameless give men the denomination of righteousness then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept But walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God denominates men righteous Ergo doing righteousness denominates righteous He that doth righteousness is righteous 1 John 4.7 And what should be the rule of doing but the precept I cannot imagine If we break the precept when we sin the precept is our rule but we break the precept when we sin 1 John 5.4 Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous and that because his works were righteous 1 John 3.12 And so Lot in like manner 2 Pet. 2.8 there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works though not to the covenant of works Zachary saies We are redeemed to serve without fear in holiness and righteousness before God B. concedimus renatos diligere deum proximum sed imperfectè diligere per consequens imperfectè legem implere Luk. 1.74 75. And this righteousness is not without its rule and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had in the sixth verse of the same Chapter There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it b We grant saith Davenant that the regenerate love God and their neighbour but they love imperfectly and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly de Justit actuali p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame as you say you do you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and an imperfect conformity to the Law It is in reference to the Law that he had his imperfections and gradual inconformity He delights he saies in the Law in the inward man but sees an opposite power drawing him aside and he quotes the precept and not the promise annex'd Thou shalt not covet to which in such imperfection he conformed I added in my Treatise Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke and if is but this once that I know that I am thus charged And the sense I think is full in those words that I do set down Secondly you go about to clear your self from some aspersions concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines in which you say you speak not to me but to others standing thus charged by them and not by me In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer Thirdly you take me to task and are content to put my name at length As for Mr. Blake's profession that he hath little of their learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not to have describ'd him But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but he speaks as he thinks Good Sir say it over again that it may be known from an hand of your eminence that I say my learning is little and that I speak it not more modestly then truly neither do you know how much I suffer that it is no more Yet least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me or rather in me let me assume so much boldnesse as to tell you that I yet think that that little which through grace I have obtained may serve to satisfie those arguments which this piece of yours holds forth against me I have been often confounded with your multitude but never perceived my self shatter'd by your strength not that my learning is equall with yours I know my self better then to enter such comparisons but your cause is unequall to mine Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatnesse of your abilities as mine against you in the goodnesse of the cause It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted in the presence of impartiall Judges Should you and I make exchange So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain and you in that which I defend a weaker then you would easily do that which I think you have not yet done But your willingnesse is observable to take a hint from my mouth to strip me of all the learning of these learned men charged with intolerable ignorance and leave their ignorance only with me as the whole you are willing to allow me Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this Let me be hold to shew him say you part of that which he sayth he is wholly ignorant of That our personall inherent Righteousnesse is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works But I were ignorant indeed if you could surprize me with your confounding of these terms Law and Covenant Those two I take much to differ In your Aphorisms where you think you speak most full and here complain that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said you have the word Law and the word Rule But I hear not of the word Covenant at all But here Law and Covenant are confounded as though every Law were a Covenant and every Covenant a Law And I were yet more in ignorance if I should let your Syllogisms pass
can be no Rule to us determining only as your self observe what shall be done to us not what shall be done by us The first branch then of your fourfold distinction of a Rule is here alone of useful consideration that is the Rule of Obedience or what shall be due from us We have nothing to say here either of the Rule of Reward or Punishment nor of the Rule of the condition of the Reward or Punishment which are your other branches And that only I here intended and I had thought all I would have known that I only intended it This you say you suppose is my meaning as well you might but withall you say It is strange to your ears and give your reasons 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature Doth not the Law of nature say you as well as the Positive Law determine de debito poenae as well as de debito officii But sure debitum officii and not debitum poenae is our Rule 2. You say If you took it for the whole of nature is that the only Rule And here comes in it seems that which is strange to your ears that I should make the Moral Law as determining de debito officii our only Rule perfect and compleat Which assertion being so unanimously received might well have delivered you from all wonder at the strangenesse of it With whom they joyn that oppose the perfection of the Morall Law how erroneous soever you had judged it Undertaking the negative part and impleading it of imperfection you have indeed Arminians Socinians and Papists on your part But Protestants for ought I know unanimously your adversaries Papists have their Traditions added as well to the Law as to the Gospel which is an accusation of the written Law as imperfect They have also their Evangelicall Counsels which though they are not commanded yet as Bellarmine speaks are commended as raising Christians to an higher perfection then ever the Law required Socinians with whom many Arminians joyn affirm that Christ hath instituted new precepts of Obedience in the Gospel and added them to the Commands of the Law such as transcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Testament-times Gerrard having disputed for the perfection of the Law against Papists cap. 14. De Evangelio saith The Popish opinion of New Laws promulgated by Christ the Photinians which is an other name of Socinians greedily imbrace making a fair way for Mahometism seeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner said That Moses gave a Law lesse perfect Christ more perfect and Mahomet most perfect of all Out of the Cracovian Catechism in the same Chapter Gerrard quotes this passage Christ came not only to fulfill the Law for us but added new precepts to it These new precepts the same Author saith they make twofold Some of which do appertain to manners Some to ceremonies or outward rites in worship He names three that appertain to manners To deny a mans self take up his Crosse and follow Christ Which three precepts my Author in way of opposition saith belong to the first Commandement Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians Chap. 4 4 6. sheweth their combination against the Orthodox party as in many other things so in this proposition now controverted He there quotes from Socinians these positions That Christ in the New Testament did not only abrogate the Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law but did much increase and add unto the Morall Law That he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it which fulfilling saith he is nothing else but a perfecting of it and addition of what was wanting That we ought not only to observe those things that are given to us of God and not abrogated by Chrijst but those precepts in like manner that are added by Christ Much more from many Socinians and Arminians may be seen in that Author to that purpose Dr. Hammond in his Practicall Catechisme speaking of Christs Sermon in the Mount agrees indeed with the Papists against the Protestants That Christ doth not here expound Moses and vindicate the Law from false glosses but that he addes to the Law and names many additions to the 6. 7. Commandement other Commandements but dissents from Papists that make these Evangelicall Counsels and makes them precepts not precepts of Moses but of Christ added by him to the Law but this with much Modesty as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion So that * Authorities vouchsafed for the perfection of the Morall Law as a Rule Mr. Burges pag. 166. handling controversies about the Law saith I shall now handle the perfection of it and labour to shew that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses And this question saith he will be profitable partly against the Arminians partly the Papists and lastly the Socinians He further saith pag. 169. That Christ did not add new duties which were not commanded in the Law because the Law is perfect and they were bound not to add to it or detract from it Therefore we are not to conceive a more excellent way of duty then that prescribed Further if we speak of holy and spirituall duties there cannot be a more excellent way of holinesse this being an Idaea and representation of the glorious nature of God Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia handling the Decalogue makes this his first doctrine (a) Lex ista Dei quae in Decalogo continetur est perfectissima regula ad vitam hominis dirigendam The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a most perfect Rule of the guide for the life of man He gives four reasons with an use of information (b) Vt legem istam Dei eo loco habeamus quo debemus i. e. ut non aliter de eadem cogitemus quam ut de vitae nostrae unica forma tanquam de illa norma quae nullum habet defectum sed perfecta est in sese perfectionem omnem à nobis requirit That we esteem this Law as it ought to be esteemed that as the only Rule of our lives and such a Rule that hath no defect but is perfect in it self and requires all perfection in it Davenant de Justit actual cap. 40. pag. 463. saith (c) Ipsa le◠Christi est exactissima pefectissima regula Sanctitatis et justitae The Law of God it self is a most exact and perfect Rule of Holiness and Righteousness And in the proof of it saith (d) Passim in Scripturis confirmatur quae perfectionem legis divinae mirificè extollunt This is every where confirmed in Scripture which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandements saith that The Law of God is perfect requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward not only in respect of the parts but of the degrees The Leyden Professors say
(e) Tam perfecta est haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Christo aut ab Apostolis ipsius additum fuerit quoad exactiorem bonorum operum normam sub novo Testamento sit adducta The Law is so perfect that nothing in Moral precepts either by Christ or his Apostles as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Testament Disp 18. § 39. Vrsinus in his definition of the Morall Law inserts this (f) Obligans omnes creaturas rationalies ad perfectam obedientiam internam externam binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward Pag. 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege (g) De perfectâ obedientiâ quam Lex requirit Of the perfect obedience which the law requires and presently laies down these words (h) Variis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus olim nunc depravata est doctrina de perfectâ obedientia quam Lex Dei requirit This doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires in all ages past hath been and is now depraved Bucan in his Common places Pag. 188. thus defines the Morall Law (i) Est praeceptio divina continens piè justéque coram Deo vivendi regulam requirens ab omni homine perfectam perpetuam obedientiam A divine injunction containing a rule to live piously and justly before God requiring of all men perfect and perpetuall obedience towards God I shall conclude with the Confession presented to both houses of Parliament by the Assembly of Divines Chap. 19. 2. The Law after his i. e. Adams fall continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteousnes and as such was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandements To these more might be addded but these are sufficient to take you out of that wonder that I should assert the perfection of it But I shall not rest barely upon the authority of these testimonies but offer to your consideration these following reasons Arguments evincing the pefection of the Morall Law 1. If the Law be not a fully perfect and compleat Rule of our lives then there is some sin against God which is not condemned in the Law this is clear Deviation from any rule given of God is a sin Deviation from that supposed additionall rule is a sin But there is no sin which the Law doth not condemn Sin is a Transgression of the Law 1 John 3 4. He that sins transgresseth the Law 2. If the Law alone discovers and makes sin known then it is a perfect full and compleat Rule this is plain Omne rectum index est obliqui But the Law alone discovers sin Rom. 3.20 This office is ascribed there to the Law and is no other but the Morall Law Had not the light of that Rule guided him in this work he had never made any such discovery And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means as appears in the quotation I had not known lust except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet 3. That which alone works wrath is the alone Rule and guide of our lives This is clear in what sence soever it is that we take working of wrath whether we understand it of working of wrath in man against God as some do Mans heart being apt to rise against him that will exercise Soveraignty over him Or of the wrath of God kindled against man upon transgression of the Law But it is the Law that works wrath it is ascribed to it and it alone Rom. 4.15 4. That which being removed will take away all possibility of sinning that is alone the Rule of our obedience This is plain were there any Rule the transgression of it would be still our sin But the Law being removed all possibility of sin is taken away Where there is no Law there is no transgression Rom. 4 15. 5. If the Law only adds strength to sin viz. for condemnation then the Law is the alone Rule of obedience This is plain Any other Rule whatsoever addes like strength to sin and upon transgression will condemne But the Law only addes strength to sin 1 Cor. 15.56 The strength of sin is the Law 6. Either the epithite morall is not justly given to the Law or else it is a perfect Rule of manners that is of obedience This is plain for morall denotes as Amesius observes that use of it But this epithite given to the Law and appropriated to it was never as I think upon any such account challenged Ergo. 7. Either this new Rule doth transcend the old Rule of the Morall Law requiring a more exact degree of perfection as Papists speak of their Evangelicall counsels Socinians of their additionall Gospell precepts or else it falls short and admits of obedience in a degree more low If it require obedience more high then even the doers of the Law in the greatest highth and possible supposed perfection though equall to the Angels are sinners The Law might be fulfilled and yet disobedience charged If it fall short of the old Rule which it seems is your opinion seeing you confesse an imperfection is our personall righteousnesse as it refers to the old Rule and assert a perfection as it relates to the new Rule then the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemnes and so you bring in a discrepency between them and find an allowance for transgression So that I think I have sufficient authority divine and humane with reasons that are cogent to conclude that which I have asserted That the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law is a perfect Rule and the only Rule You come in here with six several exceptions taken against the (a) Exceptions taken against the perfection of the Law perfection of this Law or singularity of it as rule 1. You demand What say you for matter of duty to the positive (b) 1. Exception precepts for the Gospel of Baptism the Lords day the Officers and a government of the Church c Is the Law of nature the only rule for these And foreseeing what I would answer as well you might you adde If you say they are reducible to the second commandment I demand 1. What is the second commandment for the affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his positive institution 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de speciebus c. To this I think I may answer out of your own mouth Aphor. pag. 149. The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment In case we break the commandments in the neglect of them then the commandment requires the observation of them For which you may consult also Mr. Burges Vindiciae legis pag. 149. Balls Catechisme Amesius his Sciographia Dod on the Commandments Downhams Tables Zanchy each of them on this Commandment and Cawdry and Palmer
on the Sabbath Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law which alone in this place is our business to enquire after 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue those ten words as Moses cals them Exod. 34.28 or else us commented upon or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law Prophets and Scriptures of the New Testament 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes or commands any thing as duty which is either expresly or Synecdochically either directly or else interpretatively virtually and reductively I very well know that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitely and expresly delivered but that 1. The use and best improvement of Reason is required to know what pro hic nunc is called for at our hands for duty The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts in an indefinite way which we must bring home by particular application discerning by general Scripture Rules with the help of reason which sometimes is not so easie to be done when it speaks to us in a way of concernment as to present practicall observation 2. That hints of providence are to be observed to know what in present is duty as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God If that man that fell among theeves between Jerusalem and Jericho had sate by the way on the green grass without an appearance of harm or present need of help the Samaritane that passed that way had not offended in case he had taken no more notice then the Priest Levite did But discerning him in that case as he then was the sixt commandment called for that which he then did as a present office of love to his neighbour according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour Mark 3.4 When the Pharisees watched him whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day He demands of them Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or to do evill To save life or to destroy It was not their mind that Christ should kill the man onely they would not have had him then to have cur'd him but not to cure when it is in our power according to Christ's interpretation is to kill If diligent observation be not then made the commandment may be soon transgress'd 3. Skill in Sciences and professions is to be improved by men of skill that the commandment may be kept The Samaritane powred Wine and Oyl into the Samaritans wounds knowing that to be of use to supple and refresh them Had he known any other thing more soveraign which might have been had at hand he was to have used it As skill in Medicines is to be used for preservation of mens lives so also skill in the Laws by those that are vers'd in them for the help of their neighbour in exigents concerning his estate and livelihood 4. We must listen to Gods mouth to learn when he shall be pleased at any time further to manifest his mind for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts There was a command concerning the place of publique and solemn worship Deut. 12.5 Vnto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there even to his habitation shall ye seek and thither shalt thou come Now they must depend on the mouth of God to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation When God commands that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript this is a perfect Rule implicite and virtual tying us to heed the Lord at any time more particularly discovering his will and clearing this duty to us Was not the Law of worship perfect to Abraham unless it explicitely told him that he must sacrifice his Son And if you take your self to be so acute as to set up a new Rule as you are pleased to stile it then you antiquate and abolish the old Rule and singularly gratifie the Antinomian party Two Rules will no more stand together then two Covenants In that you say a new Rule you make the first old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Heb. 8.13 You adde moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ our Law-giver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Is 2.3 And was not I pray you the old Law as you are pleased to call it his Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law and calls it the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 His Laws were delivered in the wilderness whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked This is plain for they sinn'd against their Law-giver and from his hands they suffered And who they tempted in the wilderness see from the Apostles hand 1 Cor. 10.9 And as to your Scripture the words quoted are exegetically set down in those that follow them The Law shall go out of Zion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem Which is no more but that the name of the Lord which was then known in Judah shal be great from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof You further demand And is he not the anointed King of the Church and therefore hath legislative power For answer I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was before Christ came in the flesh the Kingdome was one the same the King one and the same then and now as I take it Many shall come from the East West shall sit down with Abrah Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven The Gentiles comming in at the Gospel-call are under the same King and in the same Kingdome And if all this were granted you for which you here plead it is no more then a change in some positive circumstantial Rites and what is this to our question That our righteousnesse which is imperfect according to the old Rule can be perfect according to the new when old and new in that which is naturally Moral is ever one and the same When the Law required heart-service and love with the whole heart upon spiritual ends and motives upon which account all fell short in their obedience and performance shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this so the Rule being lower our obedience now may answer Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Law-givers and agents for God in holding out distinct precepts give the pre-eminence to Christ and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection You on the contrary seem to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses 2. Exception 2. For Justification of your accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection you say I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in tables of stone is not a
is within the verge of such an Act may be said to be acquit by Law I willingly grant seeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him But that it is a Law strictly so taken I know not You conclude that you have now given some of your reasons why you presumed to call that Ignorance And I must presume to acquaint you that till I hear more of your reasons I shall remain in this as Ignorant as ever SECT IV. Imperfect conformity to the Law is Righteousness inherent as an Image less like the Pattern is an Image I Said in my Treatise The perfection of this Holiness and Righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God as a pattern so to his Law as a Rule Here I pass by some words of yours of a Transcendentall pâ—rfection not well understanding them much less understanding that they serve at all to our purpose and come to your second There is a partial reparation of inherent righteousness in regeneration where you answer That there is a partial reparation of our Holiness in Regeneration but no reparation of our personall inherent Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this to be dangerous doctrine Answ You entituled this controversie pag. 41. Sect. 28. Of Evangelical personal Righteousness And now you understand it of personal inherent Legal Righteousness Are Legal and Evangelical the same or are not you the same When the Apostle joyns Righteousness and true holiness together as that in which the Image of God did consist and is to be repaired in the Regenerate Is there a partial reparation of the one and no reparation at all of the other In your former reply you say I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Morall Righteousness consisting in an habit of giving every man his own but of justitia forensis where you seem to make that a full definition of such Righteousness when I had thought that Moral righteousness had given God as well as man his own And if we speak not of this righteousness when we speak of a Rule of righteousness I cannot but observe that it hath been a wild discourse and little to purpose ever since either of us entred upon it either we speak of this or else I think we might as well have kept silence I know no inherent Righteousness that is not Moral Righteousness You demand Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine Answ You put it as though I intâ—nded that the Law raiseth a man to that Righteousness for which it calls in order to justification and life according to the tenor of the Covenant of works which were dangerous doctrine indeed rendring Christs death to be in vain as we may see from the Apostle Gal. 2.21 And of the more danger it is the more I suffer I say that the Righteousness of which I speak and which all I think understand when they speak as you do of a believing mans personal inherent Righteousness is from the Spirit of God working with power in the hearts of his chosen but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God and led by no other Rule And here I think there is no danger I illustrated this with a comparison As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise Here 1. You come in with yoor Dilemma against me Either that Image say you is like the Sampler in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the latter then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case Answ You may do well to tell us what near to like means in the mean time I must tell you that you bring no perfect enumeration It is like in all parts though not with a full resemblance compleat in degree 2. You tell me that Scheibler saies that similitude do's lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magìs and minùs and therefore strictè philosophicè loquendo saith he that is only simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which is properly but miâ—ùs dissimile And then you adde by way of concession Similitude consisteth not in puncto but admits of magìs and minùs that Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè Philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand Give me leave then that pretend to know no more then a vulgar wit to speak the language of Scripture which I think was your own language in the last Section where you said that There is a partiall reparation of our holiness in our regeneration and this the Apostle tels us is the reparation of the Image of God Eph. 4.24 And as I take it the language of Scheibler also in his Topicks where I had thought he had spoken strictè or logicè at least and there he saith Paria â similibus omnino differunt and how they differ I know not if there be not magìs and minùs in simili as there is not in Pari. As you confess it to be true in Scripture-sense so I take it with Scheiblers leave to be true in the exactest philosophical sense Similitude is founded in quality as parity in quantity And that qualities are intended and remitted I shall believe till I have learn'd new Logick Davenant in Colos 3.10 saith This is to be held that Christ is otherwise the Image of the Father then we He is the Image of equality enjoying the same nature with the Father whose Image he is Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation imperfectly resembling some similitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace You conclude If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose for in this conformity of ours there is somthing of quantitative resemblance as well as qualitative and so it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as similitude to the rule Answ What there is of quantity and how much you do not tell and if there be not only a similitude but also a parity between God and man so that when God is judged of man he should be tryed by his peers I shall say nothing but rest amazed SECT V. Our actions are denominated good or evill from the Law only TO your next Section in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands I have spoken sufficiently your close only is observable No doubt say you but that sincere obedience consisteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law both natural and positive
but no man can by it be denominated righteous nisi aequivocè but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree Your concession I accept but wonder at your assertion Is not doing required in and by the Law and did John equivocate when he said He that doth righteousness is Righteous 1 John 3.7 And do you equivocate also when you put it in your title page of this piece against me Is that an equivocal honour that is given to Zachary and Elizabeth to Abel Lot Joseph Simeon and divers others in Scriptures The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of Gods Law being sinners exceedingly And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his observation of it I said in my Treatise A perfection of sufficiency to attain ths end I willingly grant God condescending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience In this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say that our inherent Righteousness is an imperfect Righteousness is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteousness Here you are displeased with the ambiguity as you say of the word otherwise and tell me of a natural perfection or imperfection of which actions are capable without relation to the Rule which you confess is nothing to this business And then you adde Many a School Divine hath written Gibieuf at large that our actions are specified à fine and denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine more especially à fine then à lege But this requires more sbutilty and acurateness for the discission then you or I in these loose disputes do shew our selves guilty of Answ If there be no more subtlety acurateness in these many School-men Gibieuf then that which you please to quote out of them and particularly out of him there is no despair but either you or I might soon render our selves guilty of as much subtlety and acurateness as they And indeed guilty is the most proper term I think that can be given to discourses of this nature Actions say they as you quote them are denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine rather then à lege Though the Law that commands an action and the end at which the action aimes or ought to aime stand in a Diametrical opposition and the end is wholly without the cognizance of the Law Did not those Jewes in the time of the captivity transgress the Law of God when they fasted and mourned did not fast and mourn at all unto God Zach. 7.5 And did not the Pharisees break the Law when they did their almes to be seen of men and pray'd in Synagogues and Streets upon that account also that men should observe them The Law had it been heeded would have led them hgther as we may see in our Savious words Mat. 22.37 According to this doctrine a good meaning or intention will salve the worst action Saul had then performed the Commandment of the Lord as he said to Samuel when he spared the best of the Sheep and Oxen for sacrifice to the Lord God that had been a pious end if no command had prohibited it But to give Gibieuf his due I have examined his dispute De fine and there cannot find that he makes any such comparison or puts such opposition nor that he so much as mentions the Law when he speaks so much De fine as you mention I referred to Dr. Davenant De Justit habit 349. disputing against Justification by inherent Righteousness upon the account of the imperfection of it To this is replyyd Do not you observe that I affirm that which you call inherent Righteousness to he imperfect as well as Bp. Davenant Answ Why is it then that you laid so high a charge of ignorance on learned Divines calling it imperfect when you well know that they had not any such notion of a Metaphysical entity in their heads but maintained what they spake as indeed Reverend Davenant do's with that which you call a simple objection that as we are called holy by an imperfect holiness so we are called Righteous by an imperfect Righteousness They never refer their Righteousness to the Law as a Covenant You can find no way to charge them and acquit him As to this They are as learned as he and he as ignorant as they You adde Yea I say more that in reference to the Law of works our works are no true Righteousness at all Answ If you mean by the Law of works not a Rule but a Covenant I say with you That they are no such righteousnesse as will obtain the grace or avoid the penalty of it yet this reference to this Covenant cannot make imperfect righteousness simpliciter no righteousness though secundum quid or versus hoc it is such If I am bound in strict justice to pay the sum of a thousand pound and bring an hundred instead of it this is money though it is no full pay or totall discharge You say further He that saith they are no Righteousness saith as little for them as he that saith they are an imperfect Righteousness Answ The question is not who speaks more or less against this righteousness but who speaks most truth And Righteousness being as Rollock on Ephes 4.24 observes A vertue in man whereby he wils and do's those things which agree with the Law of God and as Gomarus on Mat. 3.15 defines it An obedience due to God and still joyn'd with holinesse it cannot be nothing and yet it can be no better then imperfect You say You suppose that I know that Bp. Davenant doth not onely say as much as you for the interest of works in justification but also speaks in the very same notions as you do referring me where I may find it in Davenant Answ 1. The interest of works in justification is not to our present question of the perfection or imperfection of righteousness therefore whether he be therein for you or against you it is not to this question much materiall Yet seeing you speak so confidently here to me and more fully else where that you have this Reverend Author in that point firm on your part insomuch that having qâ—oted a Century of witnesses that are as you say for you you adde If the reader would know which of these speak most my own thoughts I answer most of them if not all in a great part but Davenant most fully Confess pag. 457. It will be worth our pains to make some further enquiry And at the fi st sight the thing doubtless will appear to all your Readers that have read as Davenant as wonderfully strange If he speak your thoughts so fully how comes it to pass that you have so many adversaries as you complain of when he for ought I know amongst Protestant writers hath none at all If you speak both the same thing your Adversaries doubtlesse would be his And his work being so much more large then yours he would have found so
parties in Covenant and the engagement of either party Gods engagement is to be to Abraham Almighty and Al-sufficient for protection for provision so that he need not look else-where to compass good or keep off evill Abrahams Engagement is to walk before God and to be perfect or as it is in the Margent reading upright sincere which walking saith Ainsworth comprehendeth both true faith Heb. 11.5 6. and carefull obedience to God's Commandments That faith is called for in this perfection see 2 Chron. 16.8 9. To rely alone upon God in one verse is to be perfect in the other That this perfection of service of obedience is no other then sincerity all interpreters that I have seen acknowledge See Peter Martyr Vaetablus Paraeus Calvin on the place God Covenants for obedience saith Calvin from his servant and the integrity which is here mentioned is opposed to hypocrisie Rivet closeth with Calvin and in many words expresseth himself that this perfection means nothing else but integrity or sincerity otherwise saith he they that walk and are yet in the way do not attain to a perfection properly so called So that according to him the Covenant requires the same that through grace the Saints here attain and that is a perfection not property so called Dr. Preston on the words is very large to this purpose As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgement leaving me to guess whom you mean as indeed I do but with possibility of mistake That the Morall Law is the matter of the new Covenant I cannot well understand at least as you express it How far the word matter may reach I know not I believe that it is their Rule in the New Covenant but otherwise held out then it was in the Covenant of works as I have before expressed my self As a Law it loses nothing of it's ancient strictness for it is ever unchangeably the same the rule of our duty and not of our strength onely the terms of the Covenant of Grace are not for exact observation but sincere endeavour So that the least failing is a sin against the Law but not a breach of Covenant which for ought I discern is the sense that you give As for that which in the second place you urge from him whom you stile Learned Judicious and much Honoured Brother and my friend and acquaintance making these two but one Law quo ad formam I command thee fal'n man perfect obedience and oblige thee to punishment for every sin yet not remedilesly but so as that if thou Believe and Repent this obligation shall be dissolved thou saved else not I should rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim but I know not whether there be any considerable difference I so far subscribe that all that perish by the sentence of the Law to whom the Covenant was ever tendered are by neglect of Covenant left in a remediless condition The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent unbelief holds him that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law 's sentence When you come to bring all home by application to me with your censure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppose and apologizing on their part I do not well know how to understand your words that so I might see my own error You say It is most likely that those Divines that affirm that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience and accepts sincere do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense and as containing the Moral Law as part of the matter Before you spake of the Moral Law as the matter of the Covenant and now you speak of it as part of the matter And so understood you say No doubt it is true if I understand it of perfection for the future And then doubtless it is an error for I understand perfection for the present And what the Law of God or Covenant do's require it doth in present as I think require And what gave you occasion to suspect otherwise I cannot imagin When you have taken upon you their defence or at least their excuse that hold against you you come to answer my arguments that hold with you I said This opinion Arguments that the Covenant of grace requires onely sincerity vindicated That the Covenant requires perfection establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants and but now refuted as to the obedience and the degree of it called for in-covenant You answer If you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true perfection but accepts of sincere then if it be spoken of the Law of works or nature it is false and not the same with theirs whom you oppose Answ I marvail that you will put the case if I do when I tell you expresly that I do not I limit the parallel to the obedience and degree called for in Covenant which these Reverend Divines make to be the same as those that I had spoken to but differ respective to acceptation and so their mistake if it be one is infinitely below the Popish error in the Councill of Trent held forth which I did oppose You further say If you take them as no doubt you do as meaning it of the Law of Christ as the Trent Council express themselves then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ in the same extended sense as was before expressed and then they differ from us but in the fore-mentioned notion Answ I do not understand your distinction between the Law of nature and the Law of Christ as I have before largely told you and given in my reasons You speak somewhat in that which follows that the Papists do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it self to command true perfection but that which they call perfection which is no other then the grace of Sanctification as I expressed out of some of the chief of the writers But it is true perfection that those mean whom I now write against And so you conclude that you see not the least ground for my first charge But you might observe what I further say in words more at large then is here fit to he repeated purposely to prevent this objection that they look upon this which we say is no more then Sanctification as full Perfection and such that answers to the Law in the sense in which it was given Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law and so they raise up men in a conceit that they answer the Law when they live in a continual breach of it 2. I said If this opinion stand then God accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deal falsly in it whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked upon those of whom God complains as rebellious Deut. 29.25 Jos 7.15 Jer. 11.10 and 22.8 9. c. You answer This charge proceedeth meerely from the confounding of the duty as such
and the condition as such And you proceed ex non concessis to charge me with this confusion taking it for granted in the words that follow that a Covenant which is also a Law as well as a Covenant may by the preceptive part constitute much more duty then shall be made the condition of the promises In which I conceive there is a double mistake 1. That a Covenant properly so called of which we speak can be a Law in the proper acceptation For a covenant is of 2. parties either of both concurring to the constitutioÌ„ of it if it be a Law both parties are as well Law-givers as Covenant-makers A Superiour may impose a condition as by a Law but that is but one part of a Covenant 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant that is not also of the Condition of it I am sure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty which is not a condition Faith and Repentance are conditions and if you can tell me of any thing else which is matter of duty taking Repentance in its due latitude viz. to cease to do evill and learne to do well it will be a piece of a new Catechisme with me These you grant are conditions and this the all of a Christians duty Whereas you say If you will speak so largely as to say All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant are Covenant-breakers then no doubt God accepteth of many such and none but such for Whether we say say you that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience or not yet except you take it exceeding restrainedly it must be acknowledged that the precept is of larger extent then the condition having appointed some duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation Answ I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant in the sense as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant is to bâ— understood as interpreters usually give as the meaning of it God accepts that I know none to speak de adultis but those that walk before him and are sincere He neither accepts of profanenesse nor men of hypocriticall dissimulation I know sincerity hath its latitude as perfection strictly taken hath not An upright heart in temptations hath many a great shock but if you can say that the duty of the Covenant is so laid aside that the heart is not right in the sight of God as Peter of Simon Magus which must be said if the precept of sincerity and uprighthnesse be broke then I do not know that there is any acceptance Simon Magus must be in another frame before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention if I do not as I think I do not mistake the man And I have my reason for this confident opinion And as I wonder at your distinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant so I no lesse marvail at your Simile You tell me If I send my Child a mile of an errand and say I charge you play not by the way but make hast and do not go in the dirt c. and if you come back by such an houre I will give you such a reward if not you shall be whipt He that plaies by the way dirties himself yet comes back by the houre appointed doth break the preceptive part but not the condition Your distinction is between the preceptive part and the condition in a Covenant and here you talke of a precept that is no part of the Covenant but if I put all within the Covenant and say Come again within an houre not playing or dirtying your self if he either out stay his houre or play or run in the dirt he forfeites his reward and is at mercy for a whipping according to Covenant You speak afterward of a mans breach of some particular Covenant which a man may do in a temptation and yet as to the Covenant of grace be sincere 3. I said Then it will follow that as none can say They have so answered the command of the Law that they have never failed So neither can they with the Church make appeale to God that they have not dealt fasly in the Covenant Psal 44 17. Every sin according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing fasly in it You reply This charge is as unjust as the former I confesse it and you giving no further reason I shall sit down with the former answer 4. I said Then the great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse unto Childrens Children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commands to do them Psal 103.17 18. only appertaines to those that keep the Law that they sin not at all against it You answer It follows not If they sincerely keep the Law they fulfill the conditions of the Covenant though not the precept And I say the precept of the Covenant goes no higher then sincerity And I had thought you had fully concurred with me That Christ say you as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but perfect obedience to the moral law so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a directory and instruction but also as a command I am not yet convinced Adding My reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe Aphor. 157 158. How these can be reconciled I know not I think none is inabled through grace to be more then sincere and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more You further say They keep the precept in an improper but usuall sense as keeping is taken for such a lesse degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is accepted Answ They keep it if they be sincere in the sense as Christ the Mediator of the Covenant gave it in as proper a sense as they keep the conditions 5. I said Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our Covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh bind our selves never more to commit the least infirmity To this you answer We do not promise in Baptism to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth but all that is made the condition of life and to endeavour the rest I desire to know where you find this distinction as applied to our Baptism-vow You say pag. 79. of this Apology that Baptized ones are to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devill and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever since the Apostles daies qâ—oting Tertullian Cyprian and all antiquity for it I would know whether Tertullian Cyprian or any other eminent in ancient times help'd it out
the actually regenerate Page 189 192 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. It must be administred for the communicants edification Page 199 With the word as an appendant to it it may be serviceable towards conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 c. Objections answered Page 209 c. Generall charges Page 209. to 216 Particular arguments Page 216 Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a converting ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper supposeth not thorough conversion and faith justifying Page 217 Not instituted onely for justified persons Page 218 All of present incapacity to receive benefit by the Lords Supper are to be denied access to it Page 225 Scandalous persons of a vicious and profligate course of life are in an incapacity of profit by the Lords Supper Page 238 Arguments evincing it Page 239 Objections answered Page 240 Who are to judge of mens present aptitude for the Lords Supper Page 249 The judgement of the Church of England formerly concerning it ib. The judgement of the School-men ibid. The judgement of the antient Fathes Page 250 The judgement of a great party of the reformed Churches ibid. The Lords supper may be occasionally delayed Page 299 The argument borrowed from delay of the passeover vindicated ibid. Just occasions of delay instanced in Page 302 No prescript for the time frequency of observation of the Lords Supper Page 303 Directions for our guidance about it Page 304 When dispensed it may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 Excuses for absence from it removed ib. The excuse of unfitness examined Page 307 The excuse of the want of a wonted Leiturgy examined Page 308 The excuse from the variation of a gesture or posture examined Page 310 The excuse from a call to give an account of knowledge examined Page 311 The excuse from mixture of such that are supposed unworthy examined ibid. See Sacraments T. Tree OF life in Paradise a Sacrament Page 9. 14 Tree of knowledge a Sacrament ibid. These Trees had somewhat that answered their name Page 12 Not by any naturall power ib. Reasons and experience making it good Page 13 Why the Tree of knowledge bears that name Page 15 16 Transubstantiation There is no such thing Page 51 Titles A communication of them between Christ and his Church Page 448 449 Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized ones do not alwayes argue that in their thoughts they were answered by inherent grace Page 149 Type Variously used Page 428 Leviticall types lead unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 U. Visible BAptisme and the Lords Supper privileges of the Church visible Page 187 Visibility Of interest the Churches rule in administring Sacraments Page 118.187 Extreme Unction The Matter Page 534 Form Page 534 Minister Page 534 Effects Page 534 Qualifications of the subject ib. Arguments evincing it so be no Sacrament Page 585 Unfitness For the Lords Supper no excuse for a continued neglect of it Page 307 Unregenerate Man may assent to the whole truth Page 178 W. Doctor Ward VIndicated Page 116 117 Water In Baptisme implies uncleaness with a possibility of cleansing not by our own but by anothers power Page 368 It holds out the Spirit for sanctification ib. With the bloud for pardon Page 369 Word One and the same word often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Page 573 Word of God A necessary meanes of faiths nourishment Page 509 Works Paul excludes not onely works of merit but all works from justification Page 574 He excludes all works that we have done ib. He excludes all those works or righteousness which is inherent ib. He excludes all those works which the Law commands Page 575 He excludes all those works which any in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto ibid. FINIS A Table of those Scriptures which are occasionally cleared briefly illustrated or largely vindicated in this Treatise Genesis Chap. Verse Pag. 2 9 10 3 22 33 13 14 5 9 598 8 21 363 9 8 c. 516 Exodus Chap. Vers Pag. 12 25 301  43 44 45. 75. 78  48 49 75 13 4 5 399  21 22 521  45 301 14 19 20 521  21 22 523 16 14 15 ibid. 17 6 524 Numbers Chap. Vers Pag. 9 1. 300  15 521 11 7 523 14 14 521 20 9 524 21 17 18 525 Deuteronomie Chap. Vers Pag. 8 3 523 10 16 380 12 5 6 7 300  10 11 301 16 usque ad 8 299 300 30 6 376. 379 4 25 523  2 Chronicles  16 8 9 638 34 3 301  3 4 ibid. 35 19 ibid. Ezra Chap. Vers Pag. 6 19 301 Nehemiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 19 521  20 523  25 524 Psalms Chap. Vers Pag. 32 7 8 352 37 25 26 30 51 5 363  7 373 54 3 363 78 13 523  15 524  23 ib.  24 523 98 14 521 105 41 524 112 2 3 30 114 7 8 524 Jeremiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 25 379 10 25 299 11 3 4 281 23 6 449 31 32 33 84 85 33 16 449 Ezekiel Chap. Vers Pag. 12 10 204 Matthew Chap. Vers Pag. 5 48 645 6 30 590 7 6 230 9 22 486 11 28 460 13 11 12 54  39 40 49 269 15 26 260 20 29 166 24 32 269. 295 Mark Chap. Vers Pag. 4 33 54 5 34 486 6 13 534 10 14 227 16 16 170 Luke Chap. Vers Pag. 1 6 598  75 596 7 59 486 14 15 219 15 33 188 15 22 225 17 6 590 John Chap. Vers Pag. 1 4 645 2 23 220 3 5 290  5 8 10 12. 53 54 6 53 227  53 54 373  31 49 58 523 8 31 188 12 42 177 Acts. Chap. Vers Pag. 2 38 367  37 38 108  39 174  41 217  47 299 8 13 160  17 530  37 176 10 47 165 217 15 9 449 450 22 16 376. 380 Romanes Chap. Vers Pag. 2 28 128 3 25 432. 567  28 587  30 451 4 1. usque aed 12 352  3 177  11 33 35  17 218 5 9 587  8 9 567  19 365 9 4 151 7 22 594 1 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 4 4 431. 575 5 11 261 6 12 372 7 14 150. 176 10 1 2 3 424  1 2 525  4 524  5 6 7 11 428  16 17 c. 48  17 358 11 28 227 12 12 4â—9  13 358 14 14 15 16 c. 199 15 34 100  56 604 2 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 1 12 431  21 67 7 1 452 13 5 492  11 645 Galatians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 19 599 3 14 444  18 451 Ephesians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 12 299 3 17 444 448 4 24 592 5 26 372  32. 2. 541 c. 1 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 5 23 586 2 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 3 14 261 Titus chap. vers pag. 3 5 374. 380 Hebrews chap. vers pag. 4 2 471. 481 8 7 364 9 26 269 11 29 523 11 throughout 569 James chap. vers pag. 2 25 572. 577 5 14 15 535 536 1 Peter chap. vers pag. 1 4 17  22 452 3 20 21 353. 387  21 170 1 John chap. vers pag. 4 7 596 Revelation chap. vers pag. 22 2 10  11 592 2 7 10 FINIS