The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 2 – Section 3
§. 2.
R. B. YOur Digression, methinks, is very sudden, and the occasion to a stranger hardly discernable: Its like it was the uncouth apparition of some ruling wight of another Orb, which made upon your intellect that strange impression, which caused you to reel thus out of your way, and lead you unhappily into this private path, or rather bewildred you in this Maze where we now finde you. But whoever led you in, charity commands me to do my part to help you ou…, or at least to warn others that they do not follow you.
1. As to your first undertaking, I confess it was very ingenuously done, to say, You will do it [against Mr. Baxter] and not [against his doctrine or opinion,] acknowledging afterwards that I deny not your Conclusion. But I am used to Dispute against Doctrines, and not Persons: and therefore will give you the better in this.
2. Your second undertaking is more admirable then the first. For I have met with some besides you that dare adventure on the former, but never man that durst attempt the later. Is it not enough for you to prove Gods Decree of justifying to have somewhat like Justification? but you must also prove, that the Decree both to justifie and condemn, hath somewhat like Justification? If the Decree to condemn a man have somewhat like justifying him, then the Decree to torment him in hell hath somewhat like glorifying him: and the Decree to kill, hath something in it like quickening him. You must fly to some general point of similitude, or to the Lord Brookes doctrine, that all things are One, to make this good. But if it were but your oversight, then I hope hereafter you will be more compassionate to your Brethren, and no more so solemnly call men to [see the hand of heaven, in the pompous display of their folly, to appear most ridiculous; and to adore the hand of God in infatuating their parts, &c.] as you do by Mr. Goodwin for a smaller mistake then yours. Alas what man so Learned and accurate, as to be free from all oversights.
3. But indeed Sir I cannot so easily excuse your next errour, annexed to the third part of your undertaken-task; where you say [Nor is it so meant by Dr. Twiss or Mr. P…mble that I know.] What is it that is not so meant by them? Why that this Immanent act can be stiled Justification. You have boldly ventured to write thus: and I will be bold to try how well. Either its true, or not true that they so meant: If true, and undeniably apparent in the Writings of one of them, if not both, and oft repeated by him, and yet Mr. K. knoweth it not, why then he doth not only write before he knows, and Vindicate men before he understand whether they are guilty or innocent, but makes it the great motive of his undertaking, as […ot having the patience to see so worthy Divines so unworthily handled.] If in the mi…st of his impatience he knew not this, then it seems I am not alone ignorant of the business that I meddle with. But I will lay it open to the Judgement of the Reader, whether the thing be true or false? and whether you might not with less learning have known this if you would? and ought not to have known the cause before so zealous a Vindication.
Dr Twiss Vind. Grat. li. 1. part 2. §. 25. p. (vol…min) 272, 273. Sic scribit [Omnis actualis justificatio est justificatio, & omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali. Nam Analogum per se positum stat pro samosiori significato.] [Sed libet his paulisper immorari. Quaenam erit illa peccatorum Remissio quae fidem consequetur; & quam oporteat Spiritus sancto acceptam referre? Remissio enim peccatorum, si quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud est quam aut Punitionis Negatio, aut Volitionis puniendi negatio. Sit ergo peccata Remittere, nihil aliud quam nolle punire. At hoc nolle punire, ut actus immancus in Deo, fuit ab aeterno, nec fidem consequitur, &c. Quod vero operatione Spiritus sancti nobis ex hac parte, per fidem contingit, aliud esse non potest quam sensus gratiae Dei, &c. Quare siquid morte sua nobis impetrat Christus, quod ad peccatorum nostrorum Remissionem attineat, sensum *Are not Christs Merits and the Spirits gifts here highly honoured?istum amoris Divini peccata nostra remittentis, nobis impetret necesse est. Et pag. 279. c. 1. [Nam justitia Christi dicitur nobis imputari, & merita ipsius nobis applicari per fidem, non coram Deo, sed apud conscientias nostras: quatenus per fidem generatur in cordibus nostris sens…s & agnitio hujus salutaris applicationis ex amore Dei quem ex fide gustamus; & spiritualiter sentimus nos justificantem, & in filios suos adoptantem, ex quo nascitur pax conscientiae. Quare ante fidem haec Christi justitia nostra suit, quatenus ex intentione Dei patris & Christi mediatoris pro nobis praestita, &c. Sed advenicute fide quam in cordibus nostris Sp sanctus accendit, tum demum agnoscitur & percipitur hic amor Dei erga nos in Christo Jesu. Unde dicitur justitia Christi imputari nobis per fidem, quia non nisi per fidem dignoscitur a Deo nobis imputari: & tum demum justificari dicimur ejus generis justificatione, at{que} absolutione a peccatis nostris, quae pacem ingenerat conscientiis nostris. Hoc autem duobus argumentis confirmo. 1. Quia per justitiam Christi non modò assequimur remissionem peccatorum, sed & fidem ipsam, at{que} resipiscentiam, hoc est, cordis circumcisionem, Eph. 1. 3. ergo etiam ante fidem & resipiscentiam applicatur nobis justitia Christi, utpote propter quam gratiam assequimur efficacem ad credendum in Christum & agendum paenitentiam. Alterum est, quia justificatio & absolutio, prout fignificant actum divinae voluntatis immanentem, sunt ab aeterno. Unius autem voluntatis notificatio externa, per modum absolutionis cujusdam judicialis & fore…fis, quae fit per verbum & spiritum, pro tribunali conscientiae uniuscujus{que} haec est illa justitiae Christi imputatio, item{que} justificatio & remissio atque absolutio quae fidem consequitur.] Et cont. praefat. p. 18. b. Extra controversiam est remissionem peccatorum prout esta actus in Deo immanens antecedere nostram fidem & resipiscentiam: Nobis vere non nisi per fidem innotescit, cujus etiam fiducia multo adhuc confirmatior evadit per resipiscentiam.]
Lib. 1. Part. 2. p. 272. [Justificationem verò & Reconciliationem pro codem haberi ab Arminio (quod & verum est) &c. And he oft maintaineth the eternity of Reconciliation.
Lib. 2. P. 2. pag. 434. [Ergo etiam ante fidem Deus nobis reconciliatus est: neque enim nisi jam reconciliatus & propitius gratificatur nobis fidem. Quid quod remissio peccatorum & acceptatio nostri, Non nisi actus internos & immanentes in Deo notant: cujus generis actiones non suboriuntur Deo de novo.] Lege ult. & postea [Juxta ista distinguere poterimus de reconciliatione dupliciter dicta: Nam & Deus reconciliavit nos sibi in Christo quoad rei veritatem: & in ministris suis posuit verbum reconciliationis, quoad ejusdem praetiosae veritatis evidentiam & manifestationem. Sic cum inimici essemus dicimur reconciliati fuisse Deo quoad rei veritatem: quod tamen non nisi per Evangelij praedicationem fit qu…ad ejusdem veritatis patefactionem & salutarem communicationem.] Et p. 433. [At A…minius applicationem remissionis peccatorum, ita interpretari videtur, ut per applicationem fiat, & jam quasi de novo esse incipiat: quasi vero non requiratur, ut jam antea existat quod applicandum est. Nobis vero sic instituendum videtur. Christus morte sua nobis procuravit redemtionem a peccatis, cum Deo reconciliationem, & peccatorum omnium remissionem; quae quidem per pradicationem Evangelij & per fidem, nobis applicantur, non ut sint, sed ut nobis innotescant. Nam rationem omnem superat quomodo applicari possit illud quod nondum est, &c.] Pag. 434. Nostra vero interpretatio sic procedit: Christus nobis acquisivit morte sua redemptionem effica…em & actualem, id est, actualem peccatorum remissionem, & reconciliationem cum Deo. Applicantur autem ista per praedicationem Evangelij, non ut de novo fiant, sed ut nobis innotescant, &c. At inquies, actualis Remissio peeatorum est ipsa Justificatio: Justificatio sequitur fidem: nam fide justificamur: ergo nomine peccata remittuntur antequam credat. Respondeo, Cum docet Apostolus nos fide justificari, nihil aliud ex instituto docet, quam nos justificari per sanguinem Christi, sive propter Christum crucifixum.] And in the Index he owns it, that Remissio actualis est Justificatio: and therefore we may take what he saith of remission as meant of Justification.
The like Lib. 3. pag. …8. & lib. 1. p. 2. pag. 272. which we before cited part of [Nec sane occurrit species aliqua rationis, cur reconciliatio cogatur in ordinem cum impetratione remissionis, Justificationis & redemptionis, potius quam cum actuali Remissione, Justificatione & Redemptione.] So that he puts actual Justification with Remission and Reconciliation.
So contra Corvinum pag. 48. Et quid quaso Adoptio est quam conscquimur per fidem? Di…is esse Acceptationem Dei. Quid autem est Acceptatio? Annon actus in Deo immanens? An vero actus Deo immanens superverit de novo?]
Its undeniable in this that Twisse doth not only affirm Remission and Reconciliation and Adoption to be before we are born, immediatly on Christs death; but also to be immanent Acts, and from Eternity: and though he be more seldom in thus using the word [Justification] yet he affirms Reconciliation and Remission (which he saith are from Eternity) to be the same thing with Justification: yea he expresly entitleth that eternal immanent act [Justification.] And did he only affirm Remission and Adoption and Reconciliation and Acceptation to be immanent acts and from eternity, I beleeve few sober men will think it any better, then to affirm the same of Justification. Yea he plainly intimates a distinction of Justification: one from eternity or from Christs death, and the other upon our believing: And therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith, he cals it [that sort of Justification] intimating the other sort.
Now for Mr. Pemble, as he expresly maintains Justification in foro Dei to be long before we are born, even on Christs dying, so that is all one to our purpose, as if he maintained it to be from eternity. And it were meet that some of you should have shewed before now, what Transient act it is by which particular sinners not yet born (and therefore not yet sinners) are justified at Christs death *I pray you Sir remember to do this in your next.? If it were (as Mr. Pemble intimates, I think) Gods accepting the Price, its worth the while to shew that to be Temporal and Transient, when Dr. Twiss will have his accepting of man in Adoption to be immanent and eternal: But if you maintain Gods justifying act at Christs death (whether undertaken or suffered) to be an immanent act, then it must be before Christs death, even eternal too. Mr. Pembles words are, Vind. Grat. p. 21. [But with a distinction of Justification. 1. In foro Divino, in Gods sight; and this goeth before all our sanctification. For even whilst the Elect are unconverted, they are then actually justified and freed from all sinne by the death of Christ: and God so esteems of them as free, and having accepted of that satisfaction, is actually reconciled to them. By this Justification we are freed from the guilt of our sinnes: and because that is done away, God in due time proceeds to give us the grace of sanctification to free us from sinnes corruption, still inherent in our persons. 2. In foro conscientiae, in our own sense: which is but the Revelation and certain Declaration of Gods former secret act of accepting Christs Righteousness to our Justification.] So pag. 23. he speaks again of the same Justification in foro Dei, and saith, that all the sinnes of the Elect are actually pardoned, the Debt-Book crossed, the hand-writing cancelled, &c. and that this grand transaction between God and the Mediator Jesus Christ was concluded on and dispatcht in heaven long before we had any being either in nature or grace.] This phrase of [dispatching it in heaven] makes me conjecture that it will prove some immanent act which they call Justification at Christs death. Lay all this together, and judge whether it be true that neither Dr. Twiss nor M…. Pemble, do mean that the immanent act can be stiled Justification. Or if it were true, whether Justification before we are born, is not an errour fit to be resisted. Indeed it is true that Mr. K. saith, that neither Dr. Twiss nor Mr. Pemble did ever mean, that [the Decree of God from eternity to justifie and condemn men, is to be called Justification:] For the Decree to condemn men cannot well be called Justification: But I believe this being but Mr. K. oversight, he will not make use of it to justifie his third Proposition.
§. 3.
Mr. K. Digression. P. 1.
VVHether there may be a new immanent Act in God?] To the first, By an immanent act, we mean such as is terminated in the Agent; and not in any thing without it. Now that there can be any new immanent act in God, M. Baxter doth not adventure to affirm. Only he is pleased to say this; [That all immanent acts in God are eternall, he thinks is quite beyond our understanding to know. Aphor. pag. 174.] and he casteth out somewhat to render it suspected, p. 173. which I shall examine by and by.