A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Part 3
The Presbyterian Articles againſt the Diſſenting Brethren Anſwered.
I Had thought when I began this Task to have paſſed over the firſt part altogether; for tho' I found it a very falſe Hiſtory, yet I knowing from whoſe Hands the Bp. had it, I did not think he was chargeable ſo much with the falſhood, as with an unjuſt unwarineſs and partiality, to take up the Report of a Difference, and to publiſh the Hiſtory of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein, I deem'd therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true Hiſtory of the Union and Breach; but upon the review of the ſaid falſe Hiſtorical Account; and finding a freſh Preſentment brought in againſt the Diſſenting Brethren from the late Union, by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles, for holding and publiſhing many poyſonſome dangerous Hereſies, of ſo miſchievous a Nature, that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer, to uſe ſtill before he reads them; to wit, that he may not ſuck in the Bane and Poyſon thereof.
And finding the Bp. received the ſaid Preſentment very much like a Gentleman, and ſends forth his very Chriſtian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in theſe Words: The Accuſation being now publick, and the Nation is concern'd as to the Diſhonour done to Religion thereby, altho' I had ſeen the ſaid Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands, and found they had brought the ſaid Brethren under their Cenſure in their unrighteous way of proceeding, without any hearing, I thought more expedient to ſlight than anſwer their unreaſonable Clamours, being abundantly conſcious of my own Innocency in thoſe Matters; my great Miſtake was in miſtaking them, being at my Concurrence with them in the Union, (for which I have deeply repented) but a meer Stranger to their Perſons Ways and Actions. And before I come to the particular Articles, it's neceſſary to premiſe a few things; that now,
1. I think it neceſſary for my ſelf to appear to the Accuſations, and make publick Anſwer to them, but do not undertake that all I ſay is the Senſe of my Brethren in every Particular; I ſuppoſe they may concur with me ſo far, that ſome different Apprehenſions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections.
2. I apprehend it very unreaſonable, as well as unchriſtian and ungenteel, to charge thoſe things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party, which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Sayings of one or two only.
3. It is very traducing and ſlanderous; 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Senſe they repreſent them, on the Party that wrote or ſpake them, but to make an Accuſation at large, and at random. 2. That they publiſh theſe for Errors before they had diſputed them with ſuch as they charge, and proved them ſo.
4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Queſtions for my Information. 1. Whether they think in their Conſciences, and in the ſight of God, they have dealt uprightly and ſincerely with the Truth, and with their Brethren in this Controverſie? 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear ſuch publick bitter Accuſers of their Brethren, as appears by the foul-mouth'd Rebuker, and others, whoſo have been employ'd and applauded in this dirty Service? 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformiſts thus to bewray their own Neſts? 4. Whether they think not in their Conſciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in ſome Sence or other? Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms, without any Diſtinctions or Explications? Doth this become learned Divines?
The Rebukers Articles which he brought into Court were, I find to the number of 21, but it ſeems the judicious Bp. contracted them to Six, which he hath called us to appear to, looking upon the reſt (I ſuppoſe) as frivolous, illiterate or ſpiteful; the Six, with my reſpective Anſwers, are as follows.
Er. 1. That Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith, having a cauſal Influence thereunto, then Faith and Repentance are of Pardon.
A. The Words were mine in tranſitu of a Diſcourſe, and therefore it is very unfair to expoſe them, without ſhewing their Dependance. 1. I have ſhewn, and proved, and will ſtand by it, that Pardon, Faith and Repentance, belong not to the conditional Part of the new Covenant, but to the Promiſory. 2. That Pardon, Faith and Repentance, altho' they are not Foederal Conditions, yet being connected in the Promiſe, may have a Connexion conditional given to them, as if a Man believe he receiveth Pardon, in believing; if he repent, he will believe; if he repent, and believe, he ſhall be ſaved; and I renounce not the Scripture Language in anything, but deſire to underſtand and explain it in its true and genuine Senſe. 3. I ſay, that if we talk of the Foederal Conditionality of Faith to Pardon; Pardon is rather a Foederal Condition of Faith and Repentance, than Faith of Pardon; I ſay, not that it is, but rather becauſe diſtinguiſhing Pardon aright into Active and Paſſive; I ſay, Pardon Paſſive received can't be without Faith to receive it, but Pardon Active muſt be before Faith. 1. Becauſe the Object that the Hand receives muſt be before the Inſtrument that receives it. 2. The Grace of Pardon is in God to be beſtowed before we receive it. 3. There is Pardon in Chriſt for all that ſhall believe, Jo. 17.20. See what Mr. Capel ſaith on this point, It is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Chriſt for them; that was done before we were, or our Sins were, another thing to be pardoned to them; Chriſt was made a Curſe for us by Imputation, for that the Father did impute all our Sins, as a Judge to Chriſt, as our Surety, [the true notion of Imputation, that it is not an Act of Grace, but a Judicial Act] and God did exact all of him as guilty by that Law, &c. 3. Pardon in God and in Chriſt hath a cauſal Influence on Faith and Repentance: 1. Pardon is an eſſential cauſe of a pardoned Perſon, the Abſtract being the formal cauſe of the Concrete; pardoning Grace doth effectually work all Graces of the Spirit in us, the pardoning Grace of the Father, Son, and Spirit. 2. The Goſpel preached to Sinners, which is Pardon of Sin; the Goſpel preached to Abraham, is that which works Faith thro' the effectual Operation of the Spirit, Act. 13.39. Rom. 10.15. And it was preached to David by Nathan, 2 Sam. 12.17. as done before his particular Repentance, expreſs'd Pſal. 51. therefore if we talk of Foederal Conditions, Pardon is rather ſuch, than Faith and Repentance, becauſe it's in Nature as well as Time antecedent; and ſuch an antecedent, as hath a cauſal Influence. And hence I alſo aſſert, that every neceſſary antecedent, tho' with cauſal Influence upon the conſequent, is not a Foederal Condition.
Er. 2. That Sin it ſelf, as oppoſed to Guilt, was laid on Chriſt, and Chriſt was reputed a Criminal, not only by Man, but God.
A. As to the firſt clauſe, they ſhould have pointed out the Perſon that ſaid it. If I ſpake it, or writ it, I was aſleep then; for when we ſay Sin was laid on Chriſt, we ſpeak not of it by way of Oppoſition unto Guilt, but by way of Identity or Sameneſs with Guilt, in the Dialect of the Spirit of God, our uſe of the Word Guilt, being but an apt Exegetical Term to expreſs the meaning of Sin in this Point, becauſe the Phyſical Subſtratum of Sin can't be transferred to another, but the Law Relation may.
As to the ſecond charge, 1. It will be eaſily granted by the Accuſers, that a Sinner's Debts to the Law are Crimes. 2. To ſay he was a reputed Criminal in Law only, is by a received Senſe to juſtifie the perſonal and abſolute Innocency of Chriſt in himſelf. 3. I ſuppoſe they will not deny, that if Sin was charged on Chriſt for the delivery of Sinners, it was done by God as his Act, and not by the falſe Accuſation of Satan or his Inſtruments; for the Salvation of Sinners, by his bearing Sin, was never their Deſign; and it's ſaid God laid upon him the Iniquity of us all, Iſa. 53.4. The term Criminal might poſſibly be uſed by ſome or other, with a good Meaning, but I look not upon it as proper, and I don't know that I have uſed it; if I have, I have better conſidered of it. 1. Becauſe tho' the Scripture ſaith Sin was laid on Chriſt, and that he was made Sin, yet it ſaith not that he was a Sinner, or a Criminal. 2. Becauſe his bearing Sin, and being made ſo, it plainly implies that he was not ſo in himſelf, but made ſo by Law Imputation, and by ſtanding in a Surety relation to the Law for us. 3. A Sinner or Criminal doth in an ordinary and common Acceptation import a Committer, or Perpetrator of Sin, which Chriſt never was not reputed by God ſo to be. Therefore herein God ſhews his wonderful Wiſdom, in teaching us to ſpeak of Chriſt in this great Myſtery with ſo much Exactneſs.
Er. 3. That the Doctrine of Juſtification before Faith is not an Error, but a great and glorious Truth, and therefore we believe that we may be juſtified declaratively.
A. It is an Error, and it is not an Error; it is an Error to ſay Juſtification by Faith is before Faith in time, and a contradiction in Adjecto, therefore I never ſaid ſo for Juſtification by Faith can't be before Faith is in the Receiver to receive it by: But that Juſtification is before Faith, is a glorious Truth; and this I muſt affirm for Truth, that there is Juſtification before Faith, if we diſtinguiſh of Juſtification aright, as of Pardon, and ſay it's actively and paſſively to be underſtood; active Juſtification is in God that juſtifieth, Rom. 8. the Grace of Juſtification a Gift to us. 2. Chriſt as the Head and Repreſentative of the Elect, was juſtified, and all the Elect fundamentally in him, elſe Jeſus Chriſt's ſuffering as a publick Perſon, could not have been, he was taken from Priſon and Judgment. 3. Juſtification in Application, is by Nature before Faith, becauſe all Grace apprehends the Sinner before he apprehends it, and is the immediate cauſe of a Sinner's apprehending it. Again, the Grace of Juſtification is in nature before Sanctification, and the Foundation of it by the conſent of Proteſtants; and therefore it's ſaid in that Sence, that God juſtifies the ungodly; not that we ſhould be ungodly, but that he finds and takes us in that State; and ſo doth the ſanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration, God doth both juſtifie and ſanctifie the ungodly, by his active apprehending Grace, Phil. 3.12. As to the ſecond clauſe I ſuppoſe none can deny, that therefore we believe that we may be juſtified, Rom. 10.10. and elſewhere; and as to the laſt Word, wherein they lay the ſtreſs of the Error, they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monoſyllable, they believe that they may be juſtified, and declaratively, they believe that they may receive, and have Eternal Life, and that they may know they have it, according to the expreſs Words of the Apoſtle, 1 John 5.12, 13.
Er. 4. Union to Chriſt is before Faith at leaſt by Nature; and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union, and there's a compleat Union with Chriſt before the Act of Faith.
A. For the firſt clauſe of the charge I own it, and have defended it as Truth, and ſhall ſtand by it, and am ready to diſpute it with the Accuſers when they pleaſe; in the mean time, let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul? If ſo, how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root, Chriſt Jeſus? Again, if Faith be the Effect of Union to Chriſt, then Union is the cauſe, and in Nature antecedent to it. There's no need to enlarge upon ſo plain a Truth, the ſecond clauſe is as true, that by virtue of this Union, or in this Union we firſt partake of the Spirit, becauſe the Spirit is the Spirit of Chriſt, Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union; for, 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expreſſed, but if it were, there was ſomething ſaid to explain it; the Senſe I am ready to defend it in is this, that whatever Union Chriſt makes is compleat in it ſelf, ſuch is vital Union in Regeneration, where the Regenerated is altogether paſſive; and all Regeneration is perfect, tho' the regenerated is not; every one conceived is perfectly conceived, tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown; every one born is perfectly born, tho' every one born is not perfect; ſo is every one born of the Spirit, he hath compleat Life, tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life; compleatneſs of Life, and compleatneſs in exerciſing the Acts of Life, are to be diſtinguiſhed.
Er. 5. It is a great Truth, that God ſees no Sin in a Believer, and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer; God is not diſpleaſed with his People, and is not angry with the Perſons of Believers for their Sins.
A. Here are the 12, 13, 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together. As to the firſt, I ſay, 1. They are the Words of Scripture, let the Exceptors ſhew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it ſaith in that Place; Num. 21.21. and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are falſe, and mean quite contrary; as when it ſaith a Believer is bleſſed his Sins, being covered, and not imputed, Pſal. 32.1, 2. This is Poyſon; but the meaning is, He is bleſſed whoſe Sin is uncovered before God, and his Iniquity imputed; when God ſaith he doth not remember our Iniquities, you muſt read it, He doth remember our Iniquity. Let them give a rational Senſe, of Jer. 50.20. Mic. 7.19. Jer. 31.34. Heb. 8.12. ch. 10.17.
But let them not take us to be ſo ſtupid, as to underſtand this of the Eye of his Omniſciency, but in reſpect of the Eye of his Juſtice, Pſal. 51.9. when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture, ſo to prove the Word of God falſe, Num. 23. In the Senſe we take it, as I could never ſee yet the greateſt of them ever did, we will acknowledge it an Error, in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it, and receive it as an Article of Faith.
The ſecond Clauſe the Rebukers 13 is, That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer.
A. Why is this charged upon the diſſenting Brethren? Did they ever hear any one of them aſſert it in Terminis; he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Diſcourſe was above 50 Years ſince, and is it Blaſphemy or Hereſie to defend a good Man's Diſcourſe by a charitable Interpretation? If they had a Grain of Charity, they may eaſily ſee that he meant not according to that groſs Senſe they would put upon the ſaying, that he intended not to countenance Profeſſors living in Sin, nor in reſpect of Grief, Sorrow and Darkneſs, occaſioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin, but his meaning was, 1. That their Falls into Sin ſhould not prejudice that State of Union to Chriſt, according to Rom. 8.35, 36, 37, 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them, yet they ſhall not have Dominion over them, according to Rom. 6.14, 15. 3. That tho' they fall, they ſhall ariſe, according to Mic. 7.8. 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage, according to Rom. 8.28. and therefore he ſaith real hurt.
The third thing here, which is the Rebuker's 14th, God is not diſpleaſed with his People, i. e. their Perſons. A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's diſpleaſure; do they mean Paternal or Vindictive: If they mean Paternal, in a way of Rebuke and Chaſtiſment, who denies it? If they mean Vindictive, we deny it. Again, why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People, do they mean a Collection of Profeſſing People, Church or Nation? Such may be the general Defection of theſe from their Profeſſion, never real and true, that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth againſt them, as often againſt his People of Old. Laſtly, God is never pleaſed with the Sins of his People, therefore condemned all their Sins in the Fleſh of Chriſt, Rom. 8.3. But God is not diſpleaſed with the Perſons of his People, ſuch as are called according to purpoſe, becauſe he loved them with an Eternal Love; and he is a God that changeth not.
Art. 6. Believers are as Righteous as Chriſt. A. Moſt know who is Charged here, it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Maſter: I doubt not but it is with Joy, and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not: Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory, in his Pride and Inſolency; and not only upon his, but on thoſe of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at reſt with him: And why? Becauſe both of them in their Lifetime ſerved their Generation, in bearing faithful Teſtimony to the Truths of Jeſus.
I need ſay nothing to this Article: That worthy Servant of Chriſt ſpake enough to explain himſelf in that Poſition, in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall: The ſum of it was, that he meant not in reſpect of Sanctification, for there our beſt Holineſs is imperfect, therefore he means not in a way of Similitude to his Perſonal Holineſs and Righteouſneſs; but in a way of equality, i. e. in reſpect of a Believer's relation to the Law, as Chriſt hath made full Satisfaction to the Law for a Believer, ſo he is as fully diſcharged from the Law, and condemnation thereof, as Chriſt is, i. e. the Law hath no more to do to condemn a Believer, than to condemn Chriſt: His full Original Diſcharge having been in Chriſt, the thing is made plain by an illuſtration. A Rich Alderman pays a Poor Man's Debt of 10l. and ſets him at liberty from the Proſecution of the Law, and Impriſonment; which done, the Poor Man can be no more Proſecuted by the Law, than the Rich Alderman; being as Righteous in the Eye of the Law as the Alderman: But he cann't ſay, he is as Rich, as Wiſe, as Valuable in Eſtate or Perſon; or ſo Able to pay the Debts of others as the Alderman.
I know Mr. M. was not the firſt that inſiſted on this Notion, I have read it in Mr. Shephard of N. E. as I take it, in his Sound Believer; and I am ſure the Rebuker cann't call him an Antinom. As for my own part, I chuſe not to uſe the Expreſſion, (tho' it's in Mr. M's. Accept. a Truth) becauſe many that are ſhort in Underſtanding, are apt to abuſe it; and others to make an advantage thereof to wreak their malice againſt the great Truths of the Goſpel, as theſe Accuſers have done. But eſpecially, becauſe I apprehend the truth therein contained may be delivered in leſs offenſive words.
The Bp hath pitched upon Ten of the Rebuker's Articles, and reduced them to Six; there is about Eleven more which he thought had no weight or ſence in them. As,
Ac. 1. To talk of a Goſpel threat, is at beſt a Catechreſis; and nothing elſe can ſave it from being a Bull; I ſuppoſe the Bp thought that no Scholar could make an Error of it. I am the Man that wrote it, and I will ſtand by it as a very favourable Reflection upon ſuch as talk ſo improperly and impertinently.
Ac. As to the Elect, there was never any guilt upon them, in reſpect of the Righteous Judgment of God, in foro Dei: But that which accompanied the Letter of the Law, ſetting in with Conſcience.
This Article it ſeems the Bp could make nothing of, nor I; indeed it being one that M. W. hath patcht up. For I deny not the Elect are under the Law, and Children of Wrath according to it, till effectual calling; but that God's Vindictive Righteous Judgment is ever executed upon them, I do deny.
Ac. 9. It is denied that God requires Faith as an indiſpenſible Qualification in them, whom he will juſtifie for Chriſt's Merits. A. This ſmells of Mr. W.'s qualifying Righteouſneſs; all is Goſpel with the Rebuker, which he hears from his Oracle. Now to give a brief Anſwer here, becauſe I have diſputed this Article with the Gentleman already. I do not deny that God requires Faith, and will work Faith in all thoſe that God will juſtifie by Faith, but I deny that God requires Faith indiſpenſibly in all that he will juſtifie by Chriſt's Merits; for he juſtifies ſaved Infants by Chriſt's Merits, but who can ſay Faith is required of them? Laſtly, He doth not require Faith in any as a ſubordinate qualifying Righteouſneſs, to Juſtification by Chriſt's, for ſuch it is the Gentleman would have, which I have formerly refuted, but all Men muſt be Hereticks with the Presbyterians, that ſay not after him.
Ac. 10. All that a Believer can pray for is, the further Manifeſtation of Pardon, for he knows that all his Sins are pardoned. A. This is Ejuſdem farinae & Originis: 1. I ſuppoſe a Believer may know that all his Sins are pardon'd, or elſe the Scripture ſpeaks much in vain. 2. Is it a poyſonſome Error to pray for a further Manifeſtation of pardoning Grace, and Confirmation in, and Continuance of that Knowledge? 3. If a Man do not know his Sins are pardoned, or doth doubt of it, ſure he will pray that he may be Partaker of pardoning Grace, and be confirmed in the Knowledge of it; I know none of the accuſed but do pray thus, and that daily, Forgive us our Treſpaſſes, as we pray for daily Bread when we have it in the Houſe; for whatever we have of Spiritual or outward good things, it is God muſt give unto us richly to enjoy it.
Ac. 15. Legal Convictions before Faith are no more than Sin, it's but a filthy Conſcience, &c. A. I believe all that Author and his ſecond can do can't make any better of it. So ſaith the Spirit of God, Tit. 1.15. and the Bp. knew that the Articles of the Church of England ſaid ſo, and therefore he inſerts it not as an Error.
Ac. 16. All imperfect Holineſs is Sin. A. Who ſaid ſo?
This is another dab of W.'s Spittle, which the Rebuker hath likct up.
Ac. 17. Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die? Is but the Triumph of the Law over a dead Sinner. A. I argued the meaning of that Place with D.W.'s, and ſhew'd that it could be for no other end than to convince the Jews of their Inability in themſelves, (that truſted to their own Strength and Righteouſneſs inherent) to work out their juſtifying Righteouſneſs and Salvation, and to bring them to the Grace of God in the Promiſe; the Truth of which I am ready to diſcuſs with any of them.
Ac. 18. I can't make Head or Tail of; he ſhould have told us where he had it, or how he came to dream of it?
Ac. 20. Chriſt's Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation. A. The terms are falſly charged, there's no Man that ſaith that Chriſt's Abode in the Fleſh was not his Humiliation, and what he ſuffered in it; but if he means the Divine Nature's Aſſumption it ſelf of Fleſh this was an Act of Divine Power; I ſay, the taking of our Nature; for he could not be humbled in the Divine Nature, therefore he took Man's, that he might be humbled in it after his Aſſumption. This was a wiſer and more learned Man's Opinion than they that oppoſe it. If the Rebuker had read Dr. Ames's Medulla, one would think he ſhould have been aſhamed to put it down as a baneful and poyſonſome Error, altho' Mr. W.'s did, who it may be never heard of it till Mr. M. preached it. The Bp. here caſt it out, and as not conſonant to the Rebuker's Form of Prayer.
Ac. 21. We coaleſs upon believing into one Myſtical Perſon with Chriſt, which is diſtinguiſh'd from Legal Union, which is before Faith. A. Sure the Rebuker and his learned Maſter ſhew'd themſelves mighty acute Divines here at laſt; for they ſeem to take the myſtical Body of Chriſt for a great Error; for that the Error lyes, in aſſerting that Believers are Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, if they miſtake not Perſon for Body. 2. If they accuſe any for ſaying Believers make one myſtical Perſon with Chriſt, they ſhould have detected that ignorant Perſon, and not charged it on their diſſenting Brethren; ſurely they are not ſuch pitiful Wretches, as not to diſtinguiſh between the myſtical Body of Chriſt and his Perſon, and to talk of a myſtical Perſon. 3. This myſtical Perſon muſt be diſtinguiſhed from a legal Union before Faith. Where is this Stuff put together? I challenge theſe Men to tell the Man, and quote the Place where ſuch a Meſs of Nonſenſe is put together; if they do not, it muſt paſs for one of the horrid Defamations, wherewith they have beſpattered their diſſenting Brethren, to render them odious unto the World. I ſuppoſe the Bp could make nothing of it.
The Lord give them Repentance and Remiſſion of theſe great Sins of the firſt Magnitude, and that they perſiſt not thus to fly in the Face of Chriſt and his faithful Members, and that he leave them not to a reprobate Mind, as well as ſuch a perſecuting falſe Tongue, whereby we ſhall be engaged to pray the 120th Pſalm againſt them.