with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris
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
To make all men see what is the fellowship of the Sacrament Eph. 3.9 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this Sacrament among the Gentiles Col. 1.27 Great is the Sacrament of godlinesse 1 Tim. 3.16 The Sacrament of the seven starres Rev. 1.20 I will tell thee the Sacrament of the woman and the beast that carries her Rev. 17.7 And Tertullian speaking of Christianity calls it k Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of Christian Religion and Jerom saith l Sacramenta Dei sunt praedicare benedicere confirmare communionem reddere visitare infirmos orare Refert Gerardus de Sacram. cap. 1. The Sacraments of God are to preach to blesse to strengthen and establish to hold communion to visit the sick and pray Allegorical interpretations of Scripture also are called by the Ancients by the name of Sacraments Sometimes every outward sign of any thing that is holy is called by the name of Sacrament And as they began to borrow rites from the Jews in Baptisme they called them by the name of Sacraments Their Ointments and Chrismes yea the Crosse it self which the Church of Rome makes no more then a ceremony in Sacraments are called by the name of Sacraments But these acceptations of the word are grown obsolete and are so far from holding out the nature of those Ordinances which now passe under the name of Sacraments that men cannot be brought to any mistake in reading of them The word Sacrament is ordinarily now taken in that sense as Austine doth define it An outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace that is a sign instituted of God to hold out and seal saving grace to the soul as afterward God willing may be more largely held forth Now in every Ordinance of this nature there is first an outward sign open to the senses secondly there is a spiritual grace thirdly an order established and declared between the sign and the thing signified and some of these still give the denomination Sometimes the outward sign is taken for the Sacrament and therefore the distinction is ordinary between Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti And it can be no more than a bare sign when the thing signified is apart considered and put in opposition to it Sometimes the outward sign and the thing signified considered joyntly are called by the name of a Sacrament and this Gerard sayes is the most proper and most usual acceptation Sometimes the order or analogy that is betwixt the sign and the thing signified is called by the name of Sacrament and therefore Keckerman defines a Sacrament to be m Sacramentum est ordo sanctus inter rem externam in sensus incurrentem et visus imprimis objectum tanquam â—â—gnum et inter rem spiritualem tanquam signatum à Christo Mediatore institutus ad obsignandam fidelibus redemptionis certitudinem et simul beneficia quae ex redemptione fluunt tum significanda tum confirmanda an holy order between the outward element obvious to the sense especially to the sight and the spirituall grace as the thing signified instituted of Christ the Mediatour to seal to Believers the assurance of redemption and with it all benefits that flow from redemption So that he makes neither the outward sign nor yet the thing signified apart considered to be the Sacrament in that definition nor yet the outward sign and thing signified joyntly considered but the order or analogy that is held between them Lastly the word Sacrament is taken for the outward sign with relation had to the thing signified leading to it and by way of seal confirming it and in this sense it is taken by Divines when they treat exactly about it And in that sense the Apostle takes circumcision when he defines it to be A sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4.11 The use and office of the cutting off the foreskin of the flesh as by way of sign and seal it stands in relation to the righteousnesse of faith is there held forth This therefore we may well judge to be the most proper acceptation of it Keckerman therefore as soon as he had defined a Sacrament as before presently tells us that n Sacramenti vox per se concreta est et significat rem sive subjectum cum modo rei id est cum rel tione rei additâ interim tamen potest etiam usurpari pro Ipso abstracto id est pro relatione ut nos quidem in definitione usurpavimus the word of it self is a concrete and signifies the thing or subject with the manner of it that is saith he with the relation added to it yet it may be taken for the abstract that is for the relation as saith he we have put into the definition But seeing the word of it self by our Authors confession is no abstract but a concrete and the Apostle in his definition doth so consider it we have just reason in that sense to speak to it and so in this whole Treatise I shall take it And before I proceed in any further Enquiry the Reader may justly expect such a definition as may serve as a thred through the whole Discourse But my intention being to enquire something into the nature of Sacraments in mans integrity that so the Work may answer the Title A Treatise of the Sacraments but mainly to insist on those that are appointed by God for his people in the Covenant of Grace I am necessitated to put off the enquiry after such a definition that may give satisfaction till I come to that which I intend as my principal Subject Yet that by the way he may not be wholly left unsatisfied I shall here offer such a definition that may comprehend all Sacraments as well in the Covenant of Works as in the Covenant of Grace intreating him to forbear any strict enquiry into the reasons of it untill he come into the full Body of the Discourse where by the definition which God willing shall be given of Sacraments in the Covenant of Grace and from Scripture at large confirmed he may easily judge of the definition of Sacraments in general and thus I suppose it may be held out A Sacrament is a sign instituted of God for the use of his people in Covenant to signifie and seal his Promises upon Terms and Propositions by himself prescribed and appointed CHAP. II. Sect. I. Of Sacraments in mans state of integrity I shall leave the word which is of least moment being not of divine original and come to enquire after the thing which must be distinguished before it can be defined either in the general what a Sacrament is or what this or that Sacrament viz. Baptisme or the Supper of the Lord is in particular Now Sacraments being instituted of God for the use of men in tendency towards their happinesse must be considered according to the several states of man and dispensations in which God hath
and so both seales are of equall latitude which yet is more plainly exprest in his following words But if you speak onely of Covenant-right to Baptisme coram Deo by his gift of Covenant then I make them of the same extent and I cannot tell what other Covenant-right to speak of but that in which God avoucheth a people to be his and himself to be their God and I dare not have a thought of any thing but reality in his words For his distinction which he hints here and plainly delivers elsewhere of right in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiae both to Covenant and Baptisme I suppose considerate men will pause upon it before they receive it especially in the sense which he puts upon it 1. They may presse him with his own rule Vbi lex non distinguit â—ibi non est distinguendum Such a right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God I would learn 2. They may demand whether it be the Will of God that any upon the latter right coram Ecclesia should be baptized by the Church If it be then they have right coram Deo If it be not his will then they have no right coram Ecclesia I know no Court that God keeps respective to visible Church-priviledges but his Church 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to profane this Divine Ordinance in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to meer blank paper which is a most contumelious abuse of it Of many that are called few are chosen and yet all that are visibly called are thus sealed when in Gods sight all title is wanting 4. They may tell him that poor soules are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand that this great priviledge and consequently all further Church-priviledges are theirs when the conveyance is more fraudulent that casts it upon them 5. They may yet tell him that a door is here opened to Anabaptisme or multiplication of Baptisme A new door of which either nothing or very little hath ever been spoken When discovery shall be made as according to these principles it may be often made that the title when Baptisme was administred was barely seeming then all was null ab initio in such proceedings and as such persons alwayes were in the eye of God so now in the eye of men they are unbaptized persons And in case God ever vouchsafe the grace of conversion to this man he is now by Divine appointment to seek baptisme In case Simon Magus who after baptisme did discover himself to be in the gall of bitternesse by Gods grace should ever attain repentance and forgivenesse which Peter did not judge to be desperate he must then upon conversion afresh offer himself to Baptisme If Titius be admitted into possessions presumed to be his true inheritance and afterwards it be made to appear that it never appertained to him but to Sempronius when this appears all is to be judged invalid And if Titius ever gain due right he must again procure possession and is not to hold on his former crackt and seeming title So that whensoever a Minister converts a baptized man he must look upon former proceedings as null and upon his conversion baptize him Neither let Anabaptists here triumph as they may baptize whom we have baptized when they see them converted so we may baptize whom they have baptized too many of both parties manifesting over-evident signs of their unconversion 6. They may tell you that that Scripture-distinction of circumcision in the flesh and circumcision in the heart is hereby overthrown seeing circumcision in the flesh where circumcision in the heart is wanting is uncircumcision which the Apostle grants respective to true happinesse Rom. 2. ult but denyes respective to Church-priviledges Rom. 3.1 7. They may tell him that this principle standing all persons dying unregenerate dye unbaptized yea all that were baptized in infancy and after converted remain still unbaptized 8. That it is much to be feared if not certainly to be concluded that the major part by far of Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons there being I doubt no good evidence of true conversion in the most considerable part of them subscription to the confession there and consent to membership being all that is required and whether it be enough for a good satisfying evidence that a man or woman is in grace that he or she hath subscribed or put to their mark let any judge I am sure it is voyc'd that the most prophane where the Minister carries any authority are as forward for subscription as any If all marriages were null where grace were not in truth in the parties I fear that through the Christian world there would be more adulterous then marriage-copulations And in case where there is no grace there is no subject for Baptisme there are as many unbaptized persons Argument 4. vindicated My fourth Argument is The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the being of Baptisme The great condition to which baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme This is plain no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions no servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received earnest no Souldier to fight before he is listed or hath given in his name But faith that is justifying to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptisme engageth To this Mr. Baxter answers What is the conclusion Therefore justifying faith is not a prerequisite in baptisme or according to the Simile no man is bound to accept Christ to justification before he is baptized And then begins highly to Rhetoricate I confesse the reading of such passages in Grave Learned Godly Divines and that with such confidence uttered as undoubted truth and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrary minded doth very much convince me of humane frailty and that the best of men do know but in part and in a little part too If Mr. Baxter seek an instance of humane frailty he hath made no mischoice in casting his eyes upon me he cannot see so many in me as I know but I am sorry that he must put his wit upon the device of one or at least take hold on the most handsome seeming opportunity to cry up one and so to give too much evidence as one said upon the first sight of it of his own weaknesse As to the conclusion that justifying faith is no prerequisite in Baptisme in the sense that every Reader may see I have given of it I shall maintain and as Mr. Br. hath heard I have the strength of the reformed Churches for my confirmation in it but for the other which serves onely to blind the Reader and to bring me under a charge that no man is bound to accent of Christi before he be justified I look upon it as an assertion both senselesse and gracelesse I believe
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
For my conclusion in that instance of arising again it is said that It is by faith and natural knowledge mixed that I shall rise again and I am further told Thoâ—gh in strict sense it be thus mixed In our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the premises and usually from the more notable alwayes from the more debile Scripture saith that all men shall rise reason saith that you are a man Though the conclusion here partake of both yet it is most fitly said to be de fide both because Scripture intended each particular man in the universal and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men and therefore the other part is it that resolves the doubt and is the more notable and more debile part To which I onely say that of two premises the debilior should be the more notable or that a Proposition which is laid down terminis terminantibus of God himself should be more weak then that which reason concludes I am to learn I am further told that it is an undoubted truth with me that conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem That it followes deteriorem partem I long since learnt so that if one of the premises be false the conclusion cannot be true but that it must have its denomination à debiliori in the sense here spoken to I never yet heard nor could I have once thought that upon the account of the weaknesse of that Proposition of faith All men should rise it should be yeelded to be of faith that I should rise and not otherwise And here I am put to it to answer whether I have a fuller evidence that I am a sincere believer then I have that all sincere believers are justified And am told It seemes by your following words that you have or suppose others to have I wonder what words of mine those are that speak such madnesse Can I be more sure that I see the Sun than I am that there is a Sun to be seen I am yet told If you have as evidently concluded that faith is in your heart saving faith as that reason is in your soul and know your self to be a believer as evidently as you know your self to be a man then your conclusion may be denominated to be de fide as a parte debiliori But what if any man have concluded though not with that evidence and full strength of light how it is hindred but that still it may be a conclusion de fide I confesse I am to seek in this new learning to enquire into premises whether is debilior whether fortior and so to give the conclusion denomination à debiliori what if I cannot tell in which of them most strength lyes as it seems Mr. Baxter himself is sometimes to seek then I shall be at a stand whether the conclusion is to be denominated of faith or of sense or reason I take it to be de fide when I have warrant from the Word of God for it and it leads me to believe it Mr. Baxter had said in his Appendix Otherwise that is as I understand him if this proposition I shall be saved be sealed in the Sacrament every man rightly receiving the seales shall be justified and saved To this I have answered I see no danger in yielding this conclusion Every man rightly receiving and improving the seales must be saved and justified He that rightly receives the seales receives Christ in the seales and receiving Christ receives salvation In his reply he first explains himself and then retorts upon me He saies by rightly I meant having right to it and that onely in foro Ecclesiae and not rectè and confesses he should plainlier have expressed his meaning Let him then bear with others if their words do not alwaies speak their meaning so plainly as he would desire I think my meaning was never so in the cloudes as his is here He then retorts upon me in these words Whether you here contradict not your doctrine of Baptismal faith where you suppose justifying faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptisme and therefore not prerequisite in it I leave you to judge and resolve as by your explication I have busied my head not a little to find out where any colour of contradiction lyes If it be in this that I yield that every man that rightly receives the Sacrament shall be saved and yet affirm that men that are not in a state of salvation have right to Sacraments then it is a contradiction to say that any man may have true right to any thing that doth not rightly use it which indeed is a contradiction much like to some others with which I am charged and might with as good reason have found a place in an Index Having yielded to Mr. Baxter That Papists have great advantage given them by those that mistaking the nature of justifying faith think it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sinnes Yet to make it good that the conclusion that my sins are pardoned or I shall be saved may be de fide when the soul hath a right proceeded in the premises I say As it is an error to hold that to believe my sinnes are forgiven is of the nature or essence of faith as though none did believe but those that had attained such assurance true faith hath assurance in pursuit onely sometimes and not alwaies in possession so on the other hand it is a mistake to say that it is no work of faith The Apostle calls it the full assurance of faith Heb. 10.22 and describeth faith to be the substance of things hoped for faith realizeth salvation which we have in hope to the soul A description of faith saith Dr. Amesius out of a Schoolman by one of the most eminent acts that it produceth therefore I take that to be a good answer that is here charged with error that when it is written he that believeth is justified it is equivalent as though it were such or such a man is justified in case with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations he can make it good to his own self that he believeth Upon this he comes in not with a few animadversions the two first are to conclude from my own mouth that assurance is not faith in that I say it is not of the nature and essence of faith and hath it sometimes onely in pursuit and not in possession In which he seems to take for granted that I had affirmed that assurance is faith when I can produce witnesses that almost 30. years ago I have opposed it and I still persist in the denyal of it 3. He saies I know none that deny assurance to be a work of faith which Mr. Bl. saith here is a mistake to say love and obedience are works of faith but not faith it self A work I mean as my words import attainable by faith and if faith by Scripture-promises is able to conclude it then the
may be infallible and yet not known to be such to the person but I suppose that by the word demonstration you intend that the party discerns it to be an infallible demonstration which sure intimates a very high kind of certainty You may well know that I intend so when you see that I say so and I do not make that to be assurance cui potest subesse falsum If it prove in the event otherwise it was not assurance It followes 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the Major is equivalent to the conclusion I am justified and shall be saved though I should acknowledg that the conclusion may be said to be de fide in that the Major hath the predominant interest in the conclusion if so be that the man have better evidence of his sincerity then of the truth of the promise Neither do I say that that Proposition He that believes and repents shall be saved is of it self equivalent with that conclusion without the assumpion with Scripture-warrant and help of the Spirit that I believe and repent and I know not what to make of such strange supposals of a better evidence of a mans own sincerity in any man then of the truth of the promise which Mr. Baxter presently affirms to be a contradiction There is no man comes up to sincerity but he that is assured by faith that the promise is true Though he may be sometimes staggered yet he rises out of it and holds fast to the truth of the promise and when the soul hath evidence of both and is assured of both I say the conclusion is de fide see Mr. Ball of faith pag. 80. Mr. Baxter sayes Appen pag. 71. When the Papists alleadge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written that he that believeth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake saith he as if the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly credenda a proper object of faith when but one of the premises is matter of faith and the other of sense and knowledge In my Treatise of the Covenant I opposed against him Dr. Goades speech in a conference expressing himself in these words I will maintain the contrary against you viz. Fisher the Jesuite that a conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise and infallibly true by the light of reason or experience giving instance in such a syllogism Mr. Baxters answers Sect. 75. Dr. Goad saith but the same that I say onely I distinguish c. And I am well content then to say what both of them say and leave it to the Reader to take the benefit of his large and elaborate discourse on this occcasion He is pleased to put into his Index the difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain cogent argument added to prove that the conclusion forementioned is not sealed which is the work of Sect. 76. pag. 139. In which much by him is granted and much affirmed to which I assent His cogent argument that the conclusion I shall be saved is not sealed is thus framed Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior Ergo conclusio sequitur propositionem non obsignatam I shall give it in English that if possible all may understand us The Conclusion followes the weaker or worser part But the Proposition unsealed is the weaker or worser part Therefore the conclusion followes the Proposition unsealed And after many words he sayes For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the forecited argument the Major being a common Canon or Rule that holds in all figures and the Minor being yeeled by your self else I would answer to it To this I might have many things to say First That Mr. Baxter knowed that I did not allow of any such Syllogism as this which he thus frames in order to find out the sealing of the Sacraments and therefore what is here sealed or not sealed with me is little to the purpose Secondly I marvel that he makes debilior and deterior weaker and worser here to be both one when before he made a scripture Proposition to be debilior the weaker and a Proposition of reason fortior the stronger when I should be loath to make or conceive as necessarily he does a Scripture-Proposition to be deterior the worser Thirdly As to the Syllogism I shall call for proof of both his premises For the Major in his sense if I understand it I either deny or much question it and therefore distinguish of that which is said to be worser or weaker which may be either respective to the truth of the premises and then I yeeld that the conclusion ever followes the worser If either Proposition be false the Conclusion is not true But this so far as I understand is not his meaning Or they may be taken respective to the nature of them and then I know not that the denomination of the Conclusion must follow upon account either of strength or weaknesse in either of the premises For the Minor Proposition That an unsealed Proposion is the weaker or worser part I shall desire to know the quantity of it if it be universal then it is false Every unsealed Proposition is not weaker or worser then that which is sealed And whereas Mr. Baxter sayes I have yeelded it I know not that ever I was put upon it but how I shall speak my whole sense of it I yeeld that a seal adds to the strength as does an oath and therefore an unsealed Proposition is weaker then that which is sealed caeteris paribus all things being otherwise alike in both yet there may be those differences in Propositions that a Proposition may be of that strength in it self that it needs no seal and be every way equal for truth and evidence to those that are sealed and thousands of such might be named that without any seal are of equal strength to those to which a seal is added That there are lands or tenements in the County of Salop is a Proposition without a seal that R. B. hath lands or tenements in that County is a Proposition under seal yet the latter hath no more strength or evidence of truth then the former He that hath hands lineally descending upon him from his Ancestors hath a true right to inherit is a Proposition without a seal R. B. hath such an inheritance is a Proposition under seal and I desire to know whether here be not as much truth and evidence in the Major as the Minor Let us look into that Syllogism which I put to find out that which the Sacrament seals and that in the person of God himself pronounced To whom I give Christ I give all
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
some purpose so that a man might be married and poverty continued but Christ cannot be received and a state of unrighteousnesse remain It is said Receiving the persons into relation from whom we expect the benefit goes before the receiving the benefit by them which is usually the remote end and not the object of that first reception which is the condition Which may be true where person and benefit are separable but I cannot receive a woman in marriage and a wife after As an eternal increated righteousnesse is essential to Christ as God and the quality of righteousnesse connatural as man so a righteousnesse to constitute others righteous is essential to Christ qua Mediator without such a righteousnesse he is no high Priest for us and therefore his righteousnesse as Mediator was before very harshly called an accident It followes Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation as he is offere d in t Gospel And is he offered in the Gospel without a righteousnesse being offered in the Gospel as Mediatour and righteousnesse essentially necessary in a Mediatour resting on Christ we rest on righteousnesse 3. In my judgement saith he it is a meer fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousnesse that we may be justified constitutive thereby in such a sense at if the righteousnesse were first to be made ours in order of nature before our justification and then justification follow because we are righteous and so these were two things for to receive righteousnesse and to receive justification is one thing Gods justifying us and pardoning our sin and his constituting us righteous and his giving us righteousnesse is all one thing under several notions If it be granted that justification is verbum forense To receive a righteousnesse for justification is no fancy or delusion borrowed from proceeding in Courts of justice and holds out our acquittal or discharge from sentence and not making us formally just then it is no fancy or delusion to say that we receive a righteousnesse to be justified but dangerous as I think to deny it if righteousnesse and justification be one thing then that is a tautology Deut. 25.1 ye shall justifie the righteous and condemn the wicked Though it is impossible that God should condemn a just and justifie a wicked person as a man may yet righteousnesse and justification as wickednesse and condemnation differ both in God and mans proceedings And righteosnesse is not justification as wickednesse is not condemnation sure Davenant was high in this fancy and delusion when he thus entituled his 28. Chap. de justitia habituali Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae probatur 4. Christs satisfaction or redemption saith he solvendo pretium and merit cannot be properly received by us for they are not in themselves given to us but as tropically they may be said to be given to us because the fruit of them is given us It was not to us but to God that Christ gave satisfaction and the price of our redemption And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christs satisfaction and merit as it doth our justification thereby procured It is therefore the acknowledging of this redemption satisfaction or merit and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit and not the receiving that satisfaction or redemption our selves c. If Christ gave satisfaction to God How Christs satisfaction to God for us is receiued by us he yet gave it for us and God accounts it ours In him we have redemption through his blood Ephes 1.7 If we have it in him some way we come by it And how we come by it if we do not receive it I cannot imagine As the Sonne gives himself for our ransome to the Father So the Father gives the Sonne to us I marvell what comment will be put upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper Take eat this is my body which is broken for you as it is broken for us so it is given to us and so of the Cup This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Christ and satisfaction wrought by Christ Christ and redemption wrought by Christ are both received seeing Christ is made unto us redemption 1 Cor. 1.30 and faith is our way of receipt 5. If faith shall be said saith he to be the instrument of justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that righteousnesse whereby we are justified then it will follow that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ eo nomine because it receiveth him and the instrument of our adoption eo nomine because it receiveth adoption and so the same act of faith which entitles us to justification doth not entitle us to any other blessing nor that act that entitles us to Christ doth entitle us to justification unlesse there be several justifying acts but every particular mercy hath a particular act as the instrument of receiving it which is no Scripture doctrine Mr. Baxter being given to understand by a friend that this is scarce intelligible he hath expressed himself with more cleernesse in a postscript in this syllogism If the apprehension of Christs righteousnesse and no other act should strictly be the justifying act of faith and that eo nomine because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our justification then it would follow 1. That the apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act 2. And that we have right to every other particular mercy eo nomine because we apprehend that mercy and so our right to every particular benefit of Christ were received by a distinct act of faith But the consequent is false Therefore so is the antecedent The consequent is here twofold the first I yield but deny the second The apprehension of nothing else is the justifying act but that there needs distinct acts of faith to receive other mercies does not follow upon this principle which Mr. Baxter so far as I understand him in the following words hath proved when it lay on his hand to disprove Having mentioned several Sciptures 1 Joh. 5.12 Joh. 3.16 Joh. 1.12 he addes as a result from all So that one entire faith is the condition of our right Interest in Christ gives interest in all other priviledges to all particular benefits And he must remember that it is the first according to the tenour of the promise that gives right to all He that spared not his own Sonne but gave him for us how will he not with him give us all things Rom. 8.32 When the Prophet was to confirm Ahaz in the truth of a promise then to be made good he holds out to him the promise of the Messiah and onely that promise which would not have carried strength but that interest
these words I know you had not leisure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply then barely to fill paper In contentions of this nature it is easie for great wits voluble tongues and nimble pens to be more then vain And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period and so render them to the Reader That my meaning cannot be seen till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needlesse triflings 2. If Mr. Baxter know as he sayes that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames without so much as colour of sense in it which were vain to repeat what was his end but meerly to fill up paper or somewhat worse in framing of it A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatise and not as mangled by his divisions may easily see another way of argumentation and such that carries sense and I leave to the Reader whether or no it carries strength And for his satisfaction Tht Authors argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace as instrument in justification I thus put it into forme That which often failes of obtaining the end for which it is employed and never can attain to it without the concurrence of some other with it is no sole instrument in any work But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of justification when it is to that end published and imployed and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joyned with it Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing and have the same aptitude to produce the effect even when it is not applyed I answer then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter and is no instrument in actual being but when the end is obtained and then it is no sole instrument being not sole in producing the effect Mr. Baxter takes it for granted that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed and I took it for granted that it is often employed and the effect not produced but I did not then think that Mr. Baxter had meant an application to convey right where right is already in possession I added When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation and the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death and so comes short of justification To this is replyed 1. So it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of justification I grant his first and he threapes kindnesse with me in the two last he will have me to speak of the threat onely when I speak as well as he of Gods grant or promise Gospel promises are a savour of death to many This is a savour of death unto death unto many It is as great an evil to sleight a Promise as to disobey a Command or neglect a threatning his third therefore migt well have been spared but that I intend not to trifle away time I could easily shew him if I had spoke of threat a great disparity I added which should not have come in thus dismembred The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred To this is replyed Darkly but dangerously spoken and reasons given For it is possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax and so I grant the sense There is no possiblity that I should mean so having sufficiently as he after observes declared my self to the contrary if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings which men eminently learned professe they do not It followes Dangerously for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith and that faith renders it efficacious not by infusion of any new power into it but raising up the soul with strength to answer it which is not barely said but proved But my bare speech must first be censured and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure as we shall see dealt with A reason is rendred why for the truths sake and my own these words have never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another The thred hath efficacy from a needle and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent or to make a seam or hem The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone fetch up a needle from the bottome of a vessel of water Here the hand is the principall agent or the man using his hand The knife is the instrument yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone as a concause instrumental The Gospel works no more without faith then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone It followes 2. If it were the former that is meant yet it were intolerable For which reasons are given but how these hang together I know not His former now spoken to was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them and this which is in order the second is to shew by three reasons that in case they be taken in the first sense which he himself professedly grants yet it were intolerable seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense and if I did he grants the sense there is no cause that I should trouble my self with his Reasons I added in way of proof Heb. 4.2 Unto us was the Gospel preached c. 1 Thess 2.12 13. To which is replyed But where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your cause I must speak nothing it seems but syllogismes in form and he that cannot here make up a syllogisme and find out a formall conclusion is a very Infant in Logick In the first Text the Apostle as he sayes speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the soul and our question is of the relative Heb. 4.2 Vindicated And what shew of proof is there that it is
so understood of a real change as wholly to exclude that which is relative It is meant of that whatsoever which tends to the soules profit It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest If Justification be for our profit or tend at all to our everlasting rest then justification is not here excluded It followes The Scripture meaneth The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie If I take this to be the meaning I must interpret it That the Word did not justifie them for it doth justifie where it is mixt with faith though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word It followes 2. It 's true that the Word did not justifie them but that is consequential onely of the former unprofitablenesse I might as well say that the Word 's not sanctifying is consequential as he may say the Word 's not justifying is onely thus consequential I see no shew of reason that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification and consequentially onely of Justification and if it be consequentially onely proved that the Word did not justifie Them here is a reall and more then a shew of advantage to my cause I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence when the consequence by himself is granted It followes Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions and then you do something When I go about the proof of it I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it he is not pleased to give us in any difference And he ownes that which is usually quoted out of Austin He that made thee without thee will not save thee without thee and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation as sanctification I desire him onely to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession a book newly come to my hands Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon and none have an absolute nor an actual right The Gospel findeth us equal and makes no inequality till we make it our selves But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference and make it in us before it be made by us Who ever went higher in speaking of mans work in his sanctification and higher it is then ever I spake of a mans pardoning himself It is said It is weak arguing to say the Word profiteth not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying you cannot but know the sequel would be denyed Others would think that there is strength in such arguing that it receives efficacy from faith upon that account that it profits where faith is and is unprofitable where faith is not especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification It followes In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the Word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification as in progressive sanctification tell us whether you will exclude I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel as instrumental workers But it followes not as is said that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this for concauses have not influence on each other but on the effect I scarce think that maxime to be of universal truth but be it a truth I say no more then here is asserted for me Justification is the effect and the Word and faith are concauses It yet followes The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul which presupposeth faith and that 's all that the Text saith If any sense can be made of this arguing so far as I understand it then Justification presupposeth not faith which is not Mr. Baxters judgment It followes May not the absence of faith hinder unlesse when present it doth effect And would the Apostle think we have spoke of effectual faith or the efficacy of faith yea would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith if it had been idle in the soul and without all efficacy And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification excluding Justification never came that I know into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer that hath treated of Justification neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way as to say we are justified by faith had faith been there and onely had sate idle The various applications of that Text Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith may teach us not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onely The Apostle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to support by faith in sufferings Heb. 10.38 and Gal. 3.11 to justification by faith and shall we say that in the one it is working and in the other it doth nothing If we do we shall have Paul our adversary who sayes that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith what followes hath been already spoken to The second Text saith he I know not how you mean to make use of unlesse you argue thus The Word worketh effectually onely in believers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you saith he that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent but if he can for disproof of that make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles I shall oppose him to maintain the Justification of Infidels The sequel in the word convey is his own and to that which followes I have already sufficiently spoken I inferred from the former words that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such This in very big terms is denyed and the opposite boldly asserted The Gospel saith he in it self considered without the co-ordinate or subordinate or superior causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it When I stand thus highly charged to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question by reason of the clear evidence of it every man may justly expect full clear and evident Scriptures and reasons beyond all doubt for my conviction but I hear of neither but instead
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
there are many who scarce ever questioned but that they do believe yet when they come to the test are nothing TEKEL may be written upon them Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting Dan. 5.27 What the Wiseman saith of riches is true being applyed to faith Prov. 13.7 Some boast themselves of the strength of their faith that they thank God they have ever believed when as their faith is a meer fancy These boasters are but a crack like a banquerupts vapour Others complain of their unbelief yet ready to renounce all for Christ their complaint is not out of want of faith no more then the covetous worldlings is out of want of wealth but because they cannot give themselves satisfaction in believing Fifthly In case upon a due search and tryal thou find but a Mot. 5 shadow of faith and no substance Howsoever the case is not forlorn and remedilesse a meer resemblance of justifying faith and not the faith that doth justifie yet it is not so remedilessely gone but that it may be holpen not so deplored but that a cure may be had The most barren ground may be made fruitfull and the heart that is most obdurate may be made fleshy God out of the number of unbelieving ones and out of the number of meer pretenders to the faith chooseth to himself those that are truly faithful When the evidences of a mans lands are faulty and the fault past help men are willing to shuffle all over and rub out as well as they can but go with many sick thoughts about it but if there may be any way found they will not be wanting in their endeavours neither will they spare any cost to settle and establish it Deal so with thy faith bring thy evidences to Councel and what is amisse let be amended SECT VII Helps for the discovery of the truth of our Faith FOr our help in this discovery we must consider First The soyl where faith growes Every ground will not bear all grain and every heart is not capable of true faith Secondly The proper and true kind and nature of it Every plant that doth grow up like it is not it Thirdly The means that is to be used for preservation of it It will not live and grow without nourishment Fourthly The fruit that it bears or effect that it produceth True faith is not idle dead or barren Some of these or all of these will lay open thy faith to thee The humbled soul the proper soyl for faith 1. The soyl where it growes is the humble or rather the humbled soul The heart rent torn broken and nothing in its own eyes is the proper seat of it You may as soon find a fair rich garden or a fruitful corn-field upon an hard rock or in ground where no plough hath toucht as you can find faith in an heart not cast down but lift up in it self This we may see in the opposition put by the Prophet Hab. 2.4 His soul which is lifted up is not upright in him but the just shall live by his faith The heart is sometimes said to be lift up for God high in resolutions and actings in his obedience 2 Chron. 17.6 This is not done but by the strength of faith The unbelieving soul in the wayes of heaven is low and dastardly but the lift-up heart in this place of the Prophet is an heart high in it self never yet brought down to the sight of its own defiled and deplored condition and this is put in opposition to the believing heart This soul little heeds a threat as little regards a promise sees no necessity of reliance upon Christ and hath no strength for obedience The opposite to this is the believing soul and that is the humbled soul brought down in sense and sight of its own condition Humiliation as the word bears is a bringing down laying low and rendring base and contemptible and this is the most proper acceptation and in Scripture variously used 1. As the act of God upon man or any society of men as Deut. 8.2 3. 1 Sam. 2.7 2 Cor. 12.21 2. The act of man upon man one man upon another and this either to make sinfully vile filthily low so the defiling of a woman is called humbling her Levit. 21.14 Ezek. 22.10 11. or to make outwardly low and mean so Nebuchadnezzar took an oath of Zedekiah and brought him under homage to make the Kingdome base Ezek. 17.14 3. As the act of man upon himself and this also either to make sinfully vile as the sons of Eli made themselves vile 1 Sam. 3.13 or outwardly vile and so the Lord Christ for our sakes humbled himself Phil. 2.8 And as the word is used to make low or render vile so also to esteem repute and account as low and vile Sin brings a man lower then the dunghill then the dungeon and man hath made himself so by sin When we see our selves in this low estate and are brought to a sense and acknowledgment of it then we are humble then we humble our selves and the soul that is brought into this frame is the soyl in which faith takes and kindly growes Such a soul sees nothing but want and therefore is glad of supplyes sees nothing but danger and therefore is glad of support and deliverance As the lift-up heart will not come to Christ that it may have life being under no sense of death so these cannot be kept from Christ The soul which is naturally high and lofty is not in Gods ordinary way wrought into this frame without some sensible work upon it being so foul and yet in its own eyes clean so wretched and yet in its own thoughts happy it must be brought to conviction in order to conversion it must by the Law be brought to see sin before it will be washt from it or will seek a pardon of it There must be John Baptists to make way for Christ some soul-shakings before the sweet and still voyce of Gospel-comforts Something indeed may be said as to those that with Timothy have been trained up from childhood in the knowledge of Scriptures and with John Baptist sanctified in the womb for the abatement of this soul-humbling and shaking work as to the degree of it though not to the total exclusion They were not capable to make observation of the pollution of sin till they were in their measure by the Spirit cleansed nor to know the danger of sin till they were justified and acquitted yet even in those there is so much of the reliques of sin and remainders of corruption that upon discovery of their inconformity in such a measure to the will of God they cannot want some workings of Spirit But as to those that live all their dayes and never apprehend any thought of fear by reason of sin nor ever called the state of their soul into question but have alwaies carried it in the same plight Among all the questions that they have
put in their lives about their health their estates the nature of their grounds or how to carry on their Trades besides those multiplyed ones of meer vanity and inconsiderable concernment they never had it in their thoughts to move a question of any concernment to their soules The young mans question the Jaylours question Peters hearers question never came into their heads I have seen little evidence of good in these and I see little ground to believe any thing of faith in their soules You may speak of some of these as of men of good dispositions of a fair nature and harmlesse life and course these may grow up in nature moralized and regulated when yet faith is far from them they may grow up high in profession but growing in the blade or leaf onely and not in the root they may justly be suspected Every tree that bears a fair leaf doth not bear good fruit and every apple of a fair colour is not to be desired for food Such fruit as this may take where faith will not grow The Prophets words then should be heeded Break up your fallow ground and sowe not amongst thornes this way must be taken for soul-humbling that men may be brought to believing The nature of faith wherein it consists A necessary prerequisite in faith 2. The next way of discovery is to take notice of the proper and true kind the genuine nature of this grace And here I hope the Christian Reader may reape a double advantage First to understand what faith is and the requisites in it Secondly helps for proof of themselves whether they be in the faith And here we may observe First a necessary prerequisite of faith Secondly the essential parts of it The prerequisite to it is knowledge which some indeed make a part of faith but faith I suppose rather presupposeth it then is made up of it The essential parts are either in the understanding or in the will or affections for faith is an act of the soul and the whole soul is implyed in it First then of that which I make a prerequisite Knowledge is in that way required to the making up of faith that is often put for faith as Isai 53.11 And when God works to faith he is said to open the eyes or to work to knowledge or light Heb. 10.32 Act. 26.18 We come to faith by hearing we must therefore hear and know before we can believe Knowledge is the first act or work of the soul that conducerh towards faith in the heart Now knowledge is threefold First of sense we know what we see Thomas knew Christ that is the person of Christ when he had seen his wounds and put his finger into them This knowledg is not necessarily required in faith Christ there saith Blessed is he that seeth not and believeth John 20.23 And the Apostle saith that faith is the evidence of things not seen Secondly of reason we know those things which our reason is able to reach This knowledge runs through all sciences in which we attain knowledge by discourse and the clearer head the better Artist and the more of knowledge This we do not require to the being of faith though faith be not alwaies against yet it is oft above all our reasonings yea our reasonings and hammering out conclusions are oftentimes against faith The word of faith beats down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledg of God and brings into captivity every thought 2. Cor. 10.5 Our Notionalists are indeed men of sublimated understandings in case they can alwaies reach unto that which according to the Gospell they are to believe Thirdly of authority we judge our selves to know a thing which men worthy of credit do make known and if we receive the witnesse of men saith the Apostle the witnesse of God is greater 1. John 5.9 The testimony of man gives a morall certainty and such that we will not question The multiplication of witnesses renders our knowledge grounded on such authority more firm and therefore the proverb in a well qualified sense is at least near to truth Vox populi vox Dei The voice of the peopâ—â— unanimously witnessing is as the voice of God We do no mâ—re doubt that there was a massacre of Protestants in Ireland about the year 41. then we do that there was one resolved upon at Shushan in the reign of Ahashuerus Esth 3. The testimony of God is alwaies of infallible truth as to the substance so to every circumstance of it many passages about that massacre we may justly question so we must not any thing which divine verity hath made known This knowledge we require in faith and know it to be necessary to the being of faith we must know that God hath revealed in his Word a Trinity of Persons or else we shall believe no such thing as three distinct subsistences in God that the holy Ghost is God that Christ is God and man in one person or else we shall believe no such doctrine We must know the creation from the Scriptures or else we shall not believe a creation but run into that opinion that all things have ever been as they are We must know the offices of Christ or else we shall not believe that any such office was undertaken by him The same we may say of every doctrine of faith perhaps without Scripture we might have known somewhat confusedly of some of them as that there is a God and that the world had a beginning but we should have known nothing at all of many of them and nothing distinctly of any of them These we must know and from the Scriptures of God know or else we cannot believe we may as easily see where nothing is to be seen as believe where that is not known which is to be believed Ignorant persons therefore that know not the right hand from the left in religion and are to seek in the very first principles of the Oracles of God in the very beginnings of the doctrine of Christ that either come not to hear that they may learn or that learn nothing at all by hearing ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth are in an incapacity of faith Men weak in knowledg can hardly make proof of their faith they do not well know the nature or lively workings of it so want the comfort but not the thing Men without knowledge are without faith have not gone the first step towards it The essential parts of faith The essentiall parts of it are as we have said in the understanding will and affections In the understanding there is an assent to that which is revealed upon the authority of him that doth reveal it 1. In the understanding An assent When we believe any thing upon that account that we suppose we see a reason of it as that the middle region of the ayr is coldest or that the Sun is in many degrees
by a wonder of providence was advanc'd In this honour of his and low ebbe of theirs it came into his heart to visite his brethren the children of Israel Act. 7.23 He could not drink wine in bowls and anoint himself with the chiefest oyntments and not grieve for the afflictions of Joseph and see the the Comment that the Apostle makes upon it Heb. 11.24 25 26. By faith Moses when he was come to years refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches then the treasures in Egypt David in the Wildernesse of Judea was persecuted by Saul all his honours at Court were lost yea all livelihood and way of subsistence gone yet penning a Psalm in the midst of those exigents none of these are named on that day that he speaks of the fruition of Christ in Ordinances as Psal 63. may be seen Paul Phil. 3.5 6. layes open the rich priviledges that according to the flesh could be looked after and such that sometimes he himself did admire but these things that were gain to him he counted lesse for Christ yea he professeth himself to account them but dung when they stood in competition with Christ Compare the greatest of things that can be in thy desire and dung together and these will certainly stand in a great disproportion yet such is the disproportion between Christ and the greatest priviledges upon earth in a believers thoughts When the world hath a low and despicable opinion of Christ and men of the world are ready to say He hath no form nor comelinesse and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him All that is spoke of him in Gospel-Ordinances with them is dull and flat as was said of Sion This is Sion which no man looketh after So it may be said of the King of Sion Men of faith are of another opinion He is to them the chiefest of ten thousand Cant. 5.10 and stands in their thoughts above all comparison As the apple-tree among the trees of the Wood so is my beloved among the sons saith the Spouse Cant. 2.3 If men would now look into their hearts whether Christ and the great things of Christ or the world and the great things of the world have this esteem they might thence draw a strong conjecture whether they be in the Faith or whether their hearts are void of it which estimate of their Judgments may appear in their care and pains to compasse as also in their trouble upon the losse that accrues unto them If their care to compasse the world be great so that they rise up early and eat the bread of carefulnesse the world having all command of their affections to scrue them up to it self and put them on to improve their diligence to the utmost and in the mean time Ordinances are in low esteem and every way that Christ is compassed of mean regard businesses jusling out prayers and the week-dayeâ— employment in servile labours taking up the Sabbath-dayes duties when worldly affaires are followed with eagernesse and holy undertakings are done with earthly thoughts wearisomly as against the hair here is a cause of suspition Troubles in and about losses may be as great a discovery as cares to compasse If they were in Lots Wives case to run away from all and for Christ to leave it to fire plunder confiscation would not they then with a wishly eye look after them and have sad parting thoughts about them instead of joyfully suffering the spoyl of them And upon apprehensions that things go ill upon any emergent occasions at once to the hazard of outward things and the endangering of Ordinances in case they are sensible of the former and are as men senslesse of the latter having more wishes that taxes were taken off then that the Gospel should flourish here 's a true Gadarene that would part with Christ rather then his swine The world and not Christ in Ordinances is the Pearl for which they will make sale of all As to the fruit or effect that Faith produceth in the affections 2. In the Affections take these rules 1. Faith is against all whatsoever that is against Christ As it sets Christ in the highest room so it opposeth all that opposeth him and will not suffer the most desired lust that divides from him As the covetous mans lust carries him to his gold the wantons lust to his Dalilah the drunkards to his cups and breaks through all opposition in their way of fruition of them so a believers Faith carries him to his Christ and will not abide any temptation or lust in his way of interest in him Acts 15.9 We may see that Jewes and Gentiles are either of both of unclean hearts and that it is onely God that cleanseth and purifieth as he makes the heart soft so he makes it clean and saith is the instrument wherewith it is thus cleansed Lust defiles 1 Pet. 2.4 and saith purifies It is Lust that divides from Christ They that are Christ's crucifie the flesh with the lusts thereof Gal. 5.24 and that upon account of eternal fruition of him She that is married careth how she may please her husband 1 Cor. 7.34 she is not to go in any manner of attiâ—e or dresse to please her self but in that which may please him That which he dislikes she must cast off The believer is betrothed to Christ his care then is to walk in all well-pleasing and to cast off all that doth displease him If men can do that for Christ which the Galatians were ready to do for Paul even to pluck out their eyes for his sake rather then lose him then all is well but if they look into their thoughts and see that there is any thing dear unto them which is abhorrent to Christ any thing which they love that he loatheth whether it be inward filthinesse as pride vain-glory earthly-mindednesse c. or outward uncleannesse as drunkennesse whoredomes c. this evidences a total want of grace in their soules A believing drunkard a believing adulterer a believing extorting oppressor as to assent to the doctrine of faith and profession of it may well stand together and reading the Scriptures and looking among Christian professours we may find too many such believers but as to the grace of faith they stand in full opposition to it and in this sense we may justly say there is not a believing drunkard or covetous worldling upon the earth As our Saviour said concerning those devils that had held their haunt in the young man from infancy that his disciples could not cast them out because of their unbelief so I may say of all that cast not out these lusts It was weaknesse in the disciples faith that disabled them that they could not cast devils out of others It is want of faith that disableth
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soverainty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each it's particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his soveraignty doth justifie us Mr. Brs. reply analized In your reply to this passage of mine you 1. Acquit me of any further error then what is found in my method affirming that I agree with you in substantiâ rei 2. You lay down six several distinctions 3. You lay down nine propositions All of which both distinctions and propositions I believe you intended for illustration of the point in debate but your Readers and those neither of the younger nor duller sort complaine of your obscuring of it 4. You fall upon your charge of me and here you charge 1. My expressions with confounding that which was my business as well as I could to distinguish 2. You charge my implications or implyed sense which it seems you far better know then I with triple injustice 1. Against the truth and word of God 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing cutting the conditions of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive my doctrine That which all complain of in your expressions you are pleased to blame me withall in my implications Upon the comming out of your Apologie I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in these words I wish that it may not divert you from better employment and namely your Treatise about the Sacraments to which if you adjoyn as an appendix something by way of reply to Mr. Br. not so as to trouble your self and others as Mr. Br. doth too much with Logicall niceties but to clear and confirm the main matter I think it will be most convenient 2. I am charged as not affording one word of Scripture or reason when yet in those few words recited I think the reader may see as many as in all your distinctions and propositions Lastly and leastly as you term it my charge is of evident injustice to my friend For it is as is said no hard matter to know who I mean in charging him with confounding the distinct parts of Christs mediatorship I am expresly spoke to and charged without injustice for confounding Christs actions with mans faith How truly let the Reader judge And am yet guilty of injustice in charging my implyed friend in my implyed sense with such a crime 5. You excuse your self for your not much troubling me with arguments Giving your reason that you have done it over and over to others Where I would have the Reader to observe that you have other Adversaries besides me in this point and those of the most learned who as else where you say have vouchsafed that condescension as to give in animadversions 2. That we hear none of these learned mens reasons A few words of mine let fall by the bie are fallen upon and elaborate learned Treatises of others lie dormant industriously written on this subject 6. You come in with your ten arguments which it seemes you take to be a number below trouble It would trouble you If I should say your implyed sense is That they are such to which I may without trouble give in an answer 7. You amplifie your tenth argument with a large discourse and all of this before you can reach my words I should trouble the Reader in his purse and patience if I should follow you in all these particulars and indeed I was scarce ever brought so near to a non-plus To speak to all Time will not suffer and to take to some and leave others will expose me to censure Your distinctions should be look'd into and if they had been either proved or explained you had done your Reader a Favour Your first distinction is between Constitutive Justification His distinctions considered or remission by the Gospel-grant or Covenant and Justification by the sentence of the Judge I hope you do not make these two distinct Justifications that so it should be a distribution of a Genus into its species So I think few Readers will own it But if you mean by the former a Justification wrought and in it self perfect and compleat as your word constitutive would seem to imply And by Justification by the sentence of the Judge Justification manifested and declared then I freely yeeld That is Justification in it self perfect and full that renders a man blessed And this your constitutive Justification which you call remission by the Gospel-grant doth Psal 32.1 Commented upon by the Apostle Rom. 4.7 8. Whether the Elect shall have any other justification or this manifested and more fully held out let Christ himself determine At the day when God by him shall judge the world he will pronounce this sentence Come yee blessed of my Father Matth. 25.34 This Justification then by the sentence of the Judge is a manifestation of this blessedness which is in remission and non-imputation of sin Your next distinction is between Constitutive Justification as begun and as continued or consummate And here I doubt not but you may distinguish provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the first as you use to do viz. Faith only and another which is works the condition of the second When David through faith was put into a justified state and after fell into sin there was a necessity of his return in the order established of God You may say if you please that works must now acquit him from this second guilt but this I shall hardly imbrace He sought in his faln condition to have sin by free grace remitted and to be purged with that which Hysopin Ceremoniall purifications did typifie Psal 51.7 A justified state is carried on in a way of obedientiall affiance But faith in Christs blood first and last doth only justifie The Apostle speaks of the falls of the Children of God when he sayes If any man sin 1 John 2.1 and tels us the way to be acquited not any new but the old and first way We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sin And I know no other way of propitiation then through faiths in his blood I know what you say Pref. to your Confes pag. 8. if I number right They are very different questions How we are constituted just or put into a justified state at our conversion How we are sentenced just or justified at Gods Judgment seat You may if you please make them two questions but were I to be Catechized by you I should give you the same answer And I believe Paul was of the same mind when he
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
Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not quâ— operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. qâ—à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purposâ— is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the qâ—estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to
forgive me What you say is their wickedness they will say is innocent and praise worthy I never knew a more vile wretch then one that would say that he thought in conscience he served God better on a Sunday spending six pence in an Ale-house to help a poor woman with her children to live then in going to Church when his own wife and children stood in a much need as any Ale-wive's whosoever Look among Papists who look upon works not only as such that justifie but also merit and supererogate and see how far they exceed those that hold this which you call so dangerous a principle They are Saints here they say compar'd with those in Italy and Spain this being the place of their persecution Yet Doctor Hall observes in his serious disswasive from Popery that he never yet could know that Papist which made conscience of all Gods ten morall Lawes so that in leaving our principles to choose theirs upon a design to advance good works you much mistake your way and go about to work with a wrong engine And I can conclude no other but that these inferences are without reason and that there is no Gospel-principle that can be laid down but men may alike wrest to their own perdition SECT II. Mans Evangelicall Personall Righteousness is not here perfect THe next in order which you examine is concerning the instrumentality of faith in Justification which is already spoke to and inserted into the body of the Treatise and therefore I pass to your third to which you speak Sect. 28. pag. 41 entituling it Of Evangelicall personall Righteousness Where you set down words of mine at large and then subjoyn The third opinion which you rise against is that which you take to be mine as your citing my words doth manifest Where I do not then cite any words which are yours nor use your name I pray you let me not hear any such charge I am loath to cause this piece to swell with repetition of all my own words That which I excepted against was The authors concessions vindicated That our personall inherent righteousness is affirmed to be perfect and a charge of intolerable ignorance laid upon learned men that speak otherwise Here I partly implyed and partly exprest several concessions which you take hold of and raise several questions about them 1. I yield a righteousness of this kind inherent in Christians though I deny such a perfection as I take to be asserted in your Treatise And here you think I am already caught For ens and perfectum are say you as convertible as ens and bonum or ens and verum And after pains taken out of Scheibler and Scaliger to correct my ignorance you tell me It is a Metaphysicall Transcendentall perfection that you speak of which hath no contrary in being which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to being c. And you warn me still to remember that you take it not de perfectione accidentali but essentiali And I wish that you had told your Reader so I am confident there was not one that did so understand you in your Aphorismâ—s When we dispute whether such or such a thing be perfect or imperfect we take it for granted that there is such a possible imperfection of which we dispute If I dispute the truth of this proposition Coelum movetur ab intelligentiis I do not question whether this be truly a proposition but whether in the common acceptation it be logically true whether the predicate be truly affirm'd of the subject Did not you speak of righteousness and so of holiness as it denominateth the subject not as an abstract but a concrete and so susceptible of magìs and minùs if Qualities do suscipere magìs and minùs and such as is subject to contrarieties When learned divines have spoke in your hearing as you imply that they have done of imperfect righteousness can you think that it was in their heads to take it in that sense in which a little learning might acquaint them that there is no possible imperfection 2. I further yielded a perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie dissimulation or doubleness and a perfection of the entireness of the object respecting not one or only some but all commandments called a perfection of parts This you say you do not understand though I think few other Readers have been so quick as to discern any difficulty When Divines speak of universall obedience grounding their words on severall Scripture-Texts do not they ordinarily explain themselves 1. Of an universality of the Subject when the whole man is brought into obedience according to that of the Apostle 1 Thes 5.23 The very God of peace sanctifie you wholly per omnia perfectos Vatablus reads it and puts in the margent vel totos according to our reading wholly And then adds his comment The following words declare what that wholly is Vel totos sequentia declarant istud totos hoc est in spiritu in anima in corpore viz. in soul in spirit and body This is the perfection of the subject of which I spake and as I thought sufficiently explain'd my self 2. Of an universality of the Object when not one but every command is heeded as Psal 119.6 128. You tell me you charitably conjecture that when I speak of a perfection of the object I mean a perfection of our acts as they respect the object extensively And if you please but to make use of your eyes they will inform you that nothing else can be my meaning and so I shall not stand in need of your charity in it And hereupon you fall to distinguish of objects I know not why but that I may know which I well knew before that you can distinguish You tell us of objects of absolute necessity and objects of less necessity For answer to which it is enough for me that there is such an entireness in the soul respective to all known obliging commandements that denominates the man in an Evangelical sense universal and entire in his obedience After a large discourse to shew how our righteousnesse is essentially perfect you seem thus to summe up all pag. 43. Take up all together then and you will soe that 1. Righteousnesse is formally a relation 2. And that not of our actions or dispositions to the meer precept of the Law determining of duty as such Commonly called the Morall law but 1. To the law as determining of the conditition of life or death 2. To the promise and threatning of that Law which are joyned to the condition But you should consider that we are talking of a Rule without consideration either of reward or punishment and you runne out into a discourse of a Covenant The query is Whether righteousnesse be perfect or imperfect You fall upon it as a condition of Justification which never was put to question And you well know that those learned men whose ignorance
personally righteous And in this sense it is that the faith and duties of believers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace and not as they are measur'd by the Covenant of works Are not faith and duties here our personall righteousnesse and is not faith a branch of holinesse as well as it is of righteousnesse And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed Lord increase our faith Luk. 17.5 And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith Matth. 6.30 And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatnesse of her faith Matth. 15.28 And as it riseth and falls so do other duties with it they are more intense or remisse in like manner And as for their speeches which you challenge do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable as to believe the righteousnesse of what they spake was a meer non-entity i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousnesse in it They doubtlesse looked upon righteousnesse as a renewed quality as you do upon holinesse and the Apostle both upon holinesse and righteousnesse Eph. 4.24 The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on It follows that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis understand that the reason of my assertion lyes here The law as it is the rule of obedience doth require perfect obedience in degree and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree as being short of what the rule requireth and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holinesse therefore we must needs say our holinesse is imperfect And if our righteousnesse were to be denominated from this law commanding perfection we must say not that such righteousnesse were imperfect because the holinesse or obedience is imperfect but it is none at all because they are imperfect It seems you intend here exactnesse equall to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysicall and morall perfection so you seem here to distinguish of righteousnesse and holinesse either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernaturall grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the materia requisita vel subjectum proximum justitiae consistit in indivisibili How duty and holiness can be the subject of it self I know not for so they are if they be the subjects of righteousness That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty and our holiness as well as of our righteousness but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works it is easily granted that the imperfection of it renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant as Noah Daniel and Job Zachary and Elizabeth or any other of those that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness But I think no Reader could observe either in your own words or theirs that you censure any such meaning To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said Isaiah I am sure saith All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is 64.6 no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet layes upon our righteousness Interpreting the Prophets words as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind I will not contend I there added Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a rule After such courteous censure that you please to give you fall to examine what that is that I understand not In which you take one piece of my sentence apart and say How holiness should be imperfect taken materially sure you understand that It is therefore say you no doubt the other branch that you mean How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule If the Reader please to consult my words he may see that I put them not divisim but conjunctim giving in my reason why to me it is non-intelligible telling you that we may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and refer it to a rule and righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any rule at all This you disjoyn from the rest and fall upon my words apart for what reason is best known to your self And I leave it to the Reader to judge whether that I may not call holiness perfect and righteousness imperfect as well as you may call righteousness perfect and holiness imperfect and whether there is not a materiality and formality not in the one or the other but in the one as well as the other and this was that which I spake to And any man that understands no more then I will I think take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorismes was delivered You say if you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your minds I will not contradict you for I find no pleasure in contending about Words but for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used But you might have done well to let us know that that is the common sense of the word righteousness taken for personall inherent righteousness which you here use till I see that made good I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words Luk. 1.75 of Paul's words Eph. 4.24 of John's words Revel 22.11 do put such a difference as you make between righteousnesse holiness as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit the other no such thing but a relation in esse formali to what you must explain your self I have read so much difference indeed made as to put holiness for duties of the first Table in immediate reference to God righteousness for duties of the second Table in immediate concernment to man but thus taken they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit and have their intension and remission one as well as the other And I have read a rule given that where they are put together as in the Scriptures quoted they are to be distinguished as before but where the one is put apart it is to be understood as comprehensive of
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
justification and consequently with him Faith is the instrument So also Determinat 37. pag. 165. (g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris Quia constat eo modo justificari homines quo gloria divina maximè illustretur honor salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt We attribute saith he this instrumentall power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator rather then to any other act of sinning man because it is manifest that men are justified that way by which the glory of God may be most illustrated and the honour of our salvation given to God alone But they that affirm that man is justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of man's savation in justification alone to God but ascribe some part unto themselves You are highly displeased with all those that will have no other condition of our justification at the day of judgement then affiance in Christ's righteousness If you allow faith to begin it yet you will have works at any hand to perfect it Here he is as full as anywhere against you Quoting two passages out of Hilary Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon he thus expresseth himself (h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere sed non solo Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius quando dicit Sola fides justificat Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt sed non consummationem Atille longè aliter justum fides consummat Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith Faith alone justifies They attribute saith he the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation But Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion That faith in Christ as giving himself in Satisfaction for us is alone the justifying act And we shall hear how confident you are that all antiquity is against it as against the instrumentality of faith in justification and the interest of works as consummate in judgement If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat You shall see him as fully against you as Chemnitius Amesius Prideaux Bernard Anselmus or any other that you can look upon as your greatest adversaries My third argument to assert this position laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript he there makes his first which I saw not till I was come hither else I might have made other use of it And see how he expresses himself pag. 164. (i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem Vnde Aquinas In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens Deinde in mandatis comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores c. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore gratuitâ peccati remissione per propter Mediatorem in quas dum fides respicit peccator fiduciam concipit in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur Now as to that speciall proper object at which faith looks in that very instant in which it receives justification from God it is certain that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historicall narrative of creation or providence Whence Aquinas In the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon but that God be thought upon pardoning sin And in the commands and threats of the Law this speciall object is much less found For this consideration begets nothing else but terrors c. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin by and for the mediatour onely remain upon which whil'st faith looks the sinner conceives hope relies upon this mediator offered to him yields himself to divine mercy for justification and thereby attains the benefit of justification And this he backs with three Arguments You tell me Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission Giving in your reasons To which in their due place I have spoke And you may see Davenant as full against you here as any where ca. 23. de Justit habit p. 317. (k) Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis sed per modum imputationis Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith which applies to us the righteousness of Christ not that it should be made ours way of infusion or inhesion but by way of imputation And I wonder saith he that Papists cannot understand how the righteousness of Christ is applied to us by faith who think that they understand how by the Popes indulgencies the merits of Christs and the Saints are applied to the quick and dead As also chap. 28. p. 371. (l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur There is nothing more usual then to ascribe that to the cause applying which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed Therefore because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us that is attributed to faith that indeed is due to Christ Where we plainly see that according to him Faith applies the righteousness of Christ and that it is an applying cause and what cause except instrumentall I cannot imagine Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose But this is enough to let us see that there is not any so fair and full accord between you And if I should be put to name two
die in impenitency and unbelief I do not here go about to dispute the thing but only observe that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to set up concerning universall Redemption with such high applause of yours is by this position utterly overthrown For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant I need say no more then that which I have spoke there having been nothing replyed to that which I have said My argument in the place quoted Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians are violation of Covenant in brief was this They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ and forsake their sin break Covenant by a life in unbelief and sin But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ and to forsake their sin Therefore all professed Christians by unbelief and sin break Covenant I only here add If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called then finall unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called This is clear Finall perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God-ward in which they before stood in impenitence and unbelief As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance is the continuance of Faith and Repentance Explicatory distinctions examined If then finall unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace then all unbelief and impenitence denominating a man an unbelieving and impenitent person is a breach of Covenant likewise For the clearing of your meaning which is all that you do in this question you distinguish first of the Word Covenant Secondly of the word Violation You say The word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing precepts promises and threatnings Sometimes for man's promise to Gâ—d Violation You say is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non-performer of the condition or laxly for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time You apply both these distinctions Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense you say that you have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe To which I reply That it is no other then the Baptismall vow or Covenant that we are to enquire into Baptisme is as Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant In Baptisme then we engage to the terms of the Covenant and till we repent and believe by your own confession we break this Covenant But taking the word Covenant say you in the former sense i. e. for Gods precepts promises and threatnings and Violation in the latter sense for one that in Judgment that is at the day of Judgment is esteemed a non performer of the conditions so you say None violate the Covenant but finall Vnbelievers and impenitent that is as you explaine it No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatning But Good Sir reflect upon this explanation of yours and in a more serious way yet consider of it To help your self out you refer mans violation of Covenant not to his own promise or engagement in which he stands in duty tyed but to Gods engagements containing his promises and threatnings and to violate Gods promise or threatning which you here implye to be done by Covenant-breakers scarce carries sense with it We may incur his threatning or misse of his promise but we do not violate either his promise or threatning Violation of Gods precept is disobedience of which Pharaoh a man never in Covenant was guilty but no violation or breach of Covenant where there is no voluntary engagement Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant and our violation of our engagements to make it a breach of Covenant Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant in breaking not his own but the condition of the other Conanting party Jsrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew Servants go free the seaventh year Exod. 21.2 In Zedekiah's time they serv'd themselves of them beyond that terme Here was the transgression of a Law but no breach of any particular Covenant But when they entred Covenant with God to do that which Law required and ratified it by cutting a Calfe in twaine passing through the parts of it and again served themselves of them here was a breach of Covenant So that the violation that you speak of if you may call it a violation is no Covenant-violation Every man that breaks a Covenant breaks his own and not anothers part in the Covenant And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant laxly and not rigidly taken Impenitent persons in the most strict and proper sense are Covenant-breakers whâ—n one doth neglâ—ct or refuse the performance for the time but in judgment that is in the day of Judgment is found a true performer of the conditions to me it is very strange upon a severall account First I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he standes engaged which for a time he thus neglectâ— and not Gods And you so spoile all that before you spake of Covenant-violations respective to promises and threatnings Secondly Such a one in the strictest sense is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusall Was not that younger Son of his Father mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense a prodigal when he wastâ—d his substance with ritotous living notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugall course And was not shee also that was a sinner in the City Luk. 7. truly a sinner or only in a laxe sense because she afterwards repented Was not the penitent Thief as truly and in as rigid a sense a Thief when he stole as he that stole and repented not And so he that lives in breach of promise with God is as truly a breaker of Covenant notwithstanding following Repentance as those that live and die impenitent I know therefore no other way of explanation of your self to your Readers satisfaction but to say that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unlesse the conditions be finally broke Who ever doubted but when a sinner repents the doom which is passed against him for sin is reverst And that Paul a persecutor not in a laxe but in rigid sense afterwards building the faith that he destroyed shall not appear in Judgment as a persecutor And so he that is as truly and in no laxe sense a Covenant-breaker being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant SECT VII Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not Gods in the
same Page 25 Disciple D. A Title in Scripture not alwayes proper to the justified Page 149 Discipline Church-discipline asserted Page 266 c. Objections answered Page 268 Dogmaticall Faith Is a true Faith Page 176 Entitles to Baptisme Page 103 The Authors Arguments proving That a Dogmaticall Faith or a Faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme uindicated Page 120 121 c 17. Arguments added for the proof of it Page 161 Arguments from humane authorities against a Dogmaticall Faith examined Page 147 Dogs Dogs and Swine what they mean Page 260 E. Eldership ALlegations for the power of an Eldership in admission to the Sacrament Page 252 These taken into consideration Page 253 Ruling Elders uindicated Page 270 c. Grotius his testimony concerning them Page 171 Election And the Couenant of grace not commensurate Page 124 Elect. Restriction of the Couenant to the the Elect regenerate confounds the Couenant the and conditions of it Page 134 Exceptions against it answsred Page 135 136 Restraint of Couenant to the regenerate denies any breach of Couenaut Page 138 Exception against it examined ibid c. Elements No continuall holiness in Sacramentall Elements Page 324 Their touch or abode makes not holy Page 325 Engagement Answer to Sacramentall engagements necessary to Saluation Page 387 Arguments euincing it Page 389 Sacraments without spirituall profit to those that liued in breach of Couenant Page 18 Sacraments are meer shadowes and empty signes where conscience answers not to the engagements Page 389 c. Sacraments are aggrauations of sin and hightnings of judgements when conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements Page 390 When conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation Page 391 When it is that conscience answers to Sacramentall engagements Page 392 Equivocall Men of a uisible profession really and not equiuocally in Couenant with God Page 128 Gods Couenant with his people no equiuocall Couenant Page 80 Scripture language not equiuocall Page 140. 150 Equivocation What it is Page 139 Errors Reformers uindicated from a charge of four supposed great errors Page 438 Protestants uindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 Erroneous Persons in an incapacity to receive any benefit from the Lords Supper Page 236 c. Evidence Men in grace often want assuring evidence of grace Page 190 Grounds laid down Page 190 191 c Eunuch His Baptism enquired into Page 176 F. Faith THe alone grace that interests us in the righteousness of the Covenant Page 432 All forein reformers make not faith a full persuasion Page 439 c. Whether the act or habit of faith doth justifie Page 442 These phrases to be justified by faith and faith justifies are one and the same Page 444 Faiths instrumentality in justification asserted by Scriptures ibid. The unanimous consent of Protestant writers in it Page 445 c. There is somewhat of efficiency in mans faith for justification Page 447 How Christ dwels in our hearts by faith Page 450 Faith doth more then qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified Page 460 More then a bare presence of faith is required to justification Page 468 In what sense the Gospell through faith is efficacious for justification Page 481 Christians must bring their faith to triall Page 492 The absolute necessity of faith ibid. Manifold benefits of it Page 494. c. The humbled soul the proper seat of faith Page 498 c. Faith hath its seat in the will as well as in the understanding Page 504 It is hold out in words in Scripture implying affiance trust c. ibid. Faith defined Page 505 Faith far under-values all earthly things respective to Christ Page 510 Faith is against all whatsoever is against Christ Page 512 It suffers no lust to divide from Christ ibid. Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The distinction of fides quae and fides quâ asserted Page 565 566 Protestant writers guilty of no cheat in it ibid. Arguments evincing that faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 566. c. Faith dogmaticall See dogmaticall Faith justifying See justification Faiths instrumentality See instrument Fathers And Councils often too rigorous in their Rules respective to Church discipline Page 112 Queres put touching the authority of the Fathers in Controversies Page 653 c. Mr. Firmin His Appendix as to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme examined Page 94 c. The Authhor vindicated Page 95 96 His Appendix as to admission of men of yeers examined Page 104 c. Advertisments given to Mr. Br. touching his undertakings for him Page 180 Their disagreement Page 180 c. Food Ordinary and quickening food differenced Page 218 The word as well as the Sacrament is food ibid. Forum Dei Mr. Brs. distinction of Forum Dei and Forum Ecclesiae examined Page 141 Form A precise form of words not of the essence of Sacraments Page 59 G. Gesture NO one Gesture of necessary observation in receiving of the Sacrament Page 310 God His great goodness in condescension to mans weakness in institution of Sacraments Page 52 c. He is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramentall rites Page 63 He is to prescribe in his own worship Page 65 He alone must distinguish his servants in relation from others Page 65 66 He onely gives efficacy to Sacraments Page 66 He onely can seale his promise Page 66 67 His great goodness and the tender care of Christ in condescension to our weakness Page 349 His compassion to us should move us to compassionate our selves Page 551 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his Priestly Office Page 567 Grace Papists speak doubtfully of any work of inherent grace infused in Baptisme Page 377 Protestants deny any such infusion of grace in Baptisme Page 378 The Fathers acknowledge no such infusion of grace in Baptisme ibid. Common grace is reall Page 132 H. Heresie IN the Parent divests not the Child from Church-privileges Page 99 Holiness Covenant-holiness must not be confounded with inward holiness Page 148 149 The doctrine of Covenant-holiness more antient then Zuinglius Page 117 Calvin and Beza not the inventers though the promoters of it Page 118 Mr. Humphreys His Treatise of a free admission to the Lords Supper Page 247 I. NAtural Idiots uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 Ignorance Ignorant In Covenant Parents divests not the Child of Church-privileges Page 99 Grossely ignorant ones in an incapacity of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 230 Ignorance distinguished ibid. Image An Image less like the Pattern is an Image Page 612 Impenitence And unbelief in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of grace Page 622 Arguments evincing it Page 624 c. Infants Of confederate Parents put no bar to their Baptisme Page 95 They are uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 226 The different practice of Antiquity ibid. Schoolemen divided about it ibid. The present practice of the Church of
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
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
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