A Vindication of the Magistrates and Ministers of Gloucester, Question 5 – Question 10
Q. 5. Whether Faith be a condition of the new Covenant, Neg. according to Master B.
1. HEre we differ in opinion. Maſter Bacon thus differenceth the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace, That the one promiſeth life upon condition, the other gives it upon free promiſe. Anſw. The difference of the Covenants was wont to be made by their conditions. In the firſt, life is promiſed upon condition of workes; in the ſecond, upon condition of beleeving. The ſame place which works had in the firſt Covenant, faith hath obtained in the new. There is a law of works and a law of faith: Faith is the Goſpell duty, and unbeleefe is the maine Goſpell ſinne. But let us examine the difference made by him. The Covenant of workes promiſeth life upon condition, the other gives it of free promiſe. Anſw. A free promiſe doth not deny all conditioning; as, To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the ſonnes of God, even to them that beleeve on his name; neither doth the free promiſe exclude the condition of Faith; for the Law of Faith is free of the higheſt grace▪ and doth exclude boaſting and bondage.
2 We are not required to the ratification of the Covenant to bring faith to God, but the new Covenant is to give us faith to bring us to God … Anſw. Neither to the ratification of the firſt Covenant were we required to bring works to God, nor did any works before the Covenant merit or make way for the promiſe of life upon condition of works. But God in the very making of that Covenant gave man abilitie to perform the tenure thereof. On the ſame manner ſuppoſing Faith to be the Condition of the new Covenant, it doth not infer, that we muſt bring faith to God, but 'tis moſt neceſſarie that God work faith in us to the ratification of the Covenant. Faith is not pre-required in the way of merit, or previous diſpoſition, but at the very inſtant, when God ſtrikes Covenant with the ſoul, faith, though freely given, is requiſite to the exiſtence of that Covenant. And whereas he ſaith, The Covenant doth not depend upon our beleeving, but upon Gods promiſe and faithfulneſſe. I anſwer: The Covenent doth depend upon Gods promiſe as the ground, and upon our beleeving as the Condition. To prove that the Covenant doth not depend upon our beleeving as a Condition, he urgeth 2 Tim. 2.13. If we beleeve not, yet he abideth faithfull, and cannot deny himſelf. If he will draw thence any thing to his purpoſe, he muſt thus expound it, if we beleeve not, yet he will give life unto us becauſe he abideth faithfull, and cannot deny himſelf. Whereas the ſenſe is manifeſt, if we beleeve not, yet he abideth faithfull, and will make good his promiſes to them who by faith receive them.
3 In the new Covenant God tyes himſelf, and not the Creature. Anſ. The eſſentiall form of a Covenant requires the binding of both parties. But how doth he prove this paradox? Becauſe we are in Gods keeping, and not in our own. Is not this ſound reaſoning? We are in Gods keeping; therefore God tyes us not. Or becauſe God doth uphold us above the power of falling away, therefore we are not bound to perſevere in beleeving. And if God tyes not the Creature, he hath let looſe the rains to all licentiouſneſſe. In the laſt clauſe he ſaith, That faith is urged in the Miniſtery of the Goſpel, and given to them that ſhall be ſaved, becauſe no man is juſtified in his conſcience before God till he doth beleeve. Anſ. Here we have an Antinomian principle, that Faith doth not receive and apply our pardon, but ſerves onelyonly to read our pardon. Secondly, he confounds Juſtification before God, and that before Conſcience, which are diſtinct notions.
Qu. 6. Whether godly ſorrow for ſin be required of ſuch a one as is the Covenant of grace. Aff: according to Mr. Bacon.
We agree in the tearms of the Queſtion: but firſt I ſhall obſerve that Mr. Bacons preaching did rather tend to undermine godly ſorrow. He had theſe paſſages. Phariſaicall Repentance doth conſiſt in Contrition, Confeſſion, Humiliation, and Satisfaction. Firſt in Contrition, (i.) brokenneſſe of heart, thus the great Phariſees of the world ſpeak of it. That there muſt be in thoſe, that do repent before they be accepted of Chriſt, Contrition enough (i.) brokenneſſe of heart, before they come to Chriſt. Now I would fain know when we ſhould come to brokenneſſe of heart enough, that we may be judged fit to come to Chriſt. I think none of them are able to give ſatisfaction. And a little after. You muſt not think to get a broken heart before you have got Chriſt, but having Chriſt he will give you a Broken heart. Here he makes Contrition a part of Phariſaicall Repentance, and accounts them the great Phariſees of the time who require Contrition enough before men be accepted of Chriſt. But thoſe Preachers who in Mr. Bacons eſteem are Phariſees, do teach that true Contrition is wrought in reſpect of time neither before nor after the receiving of Chriſt: but at the ſame inſtant, without which there is no coming to Chriſt; though he ſaith it is wrought after. When Chriſt proclaims, Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, can any then come to Chriſt till he hath a Broken heart? And Contrition enough is required not in reſpect of quantitie and meaſure, but for quality and kind, which is wont to be ſet forth by quantitative tearms, becauſe 'tis a ſolid, deeper, and more piercing ſorrow then all worldly mournings, and the greateſt howlings of Hypocrites.
2. Whereas he now ſaith, that godly ſorrow is required in caſe of ſin: he hath expreſly declared the contrary in the forementioned Sermon in theſe words. Humiliation, for we ſpeak of Phariſaicall Repentance, for theſe things are ſpoken of thoſe that repent to Salvation but in an other way, is a certain caſting down of a man or woman becauſe of ſin, or the evill that doth accompany it. This is found in Hypocrites and unbeleevers. Gen. 4. Matth. 6.16. Iſa. 58. By this dejectment they think to come into the favour of God; but by it may come into the disfavour of God. I ſhall deſcribe that Humiliation, that is approved by God, and found in the Saints. It is a dejectment of a mans ſelf upon the ſight, and knowledge of the glory, greatneſſe, power, and goodneſſe of God in Chriſt Jeſus. So that as the knowledge of God in Chriſt doth increaſe in the ſoul, the ſoul is abaſed, as Iſa. 6. four firſt verſes. Thus he declares Phariſaicall humiliation to be a caſting down of a man becauſe of ſin: the Saints humiliation to ariſe from the ſight of the glory of God; where as now he ſaith, godly ſorrow is required in caſe of ſin. How can he reconcile this contradiction? We hold that the ſoul is graciouſly humbled in the ſight of ſin, together with the reflection of the glory of God. Which the Text in Iſa. 6. would have cleared unto him, had he took in the latter part, viz. I am undone, I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell amongst a people of unclean lips. Now let it be well conſidered whether this be to handle Gods Word ſincerely.
Qu. 7. Whether Confeſſion of ſin (i.) of ur originall corruption, and ſinfull actions reckoning them before the Lord be required in a Chriſtian. Aff. according to M. B.
HEre we agree in the tearms at leaſt, but in the ſtating of the Queſtion I ſhall briefly obſerve ſome impertinencies, and ſo paſſe on. Firſt, that Hypocrites are wont to confeſſe their ſinfull actions, but not their ſinfulneſſe: the Saints confeſſe not onelyonly their ſinfull Actions, but their ſinfulneſſe. Now by ſinfulneſſe he doth underſtand their unclean natures. But know we not that Hypocrites as well as the Saints confeſſe their ſinfull natures, as their ſinfull actions? and in this they differ, that the one confeſſe both theſe in hypocriſie, the other confeſſe both in ſinceritie.
2. He addeth, The Confeſſion of the Saints is grounded upon the knowledge of Gods love in Chriſt: but the confeſſion of the Hypocrites upon ſome other information. Anſ. Is not the Confeſſion of the Saints grounded alſo upon the knowledge of ſin, and of the glory and holineſſe of the Lord, as upon the knowledge of Gods love in Chriſt? Is there any difference between them and Hypocrites in this point, but that they confeſſe upon all the former conſiderations with ſinceritie, and reſolution of amendment of wayes: but Hypocrites upon the ſame conſiderations do not confeſſe from the bottome of their hearts, and with a full purpoſe of Amendment?
Qu. 8. Whether you hold communion with the Church of England (i.) in our Parochiall Aſſemblies to be lawfull? Neg. according to Mr. B.
IN this we differ. Firſt againſt Mr. Bacon I reply, that this Queſtion is not a matter properly concerning diſcipline, except matters of diſcipline can deny Communion in the worſhip and ordinances of Chriſt. Alſo the defects of Reformation is no ground of Separation.
2 A ſuppoſition of the peoples not having repented them of their falſe worſhip, is no ground of ſeparation.
3 That he ſhall communicate with any people in any Aſſembly ſo far as reformed according to the Word of God, is no determinate anſwer.
4 His Collection from this Queſtion, That every Pariſh ſhould bear the name of the Church of England is very abſurd. Becauſe we ſpeak of a Church in Parochiall Aſſemblies as the whole in it's parts, muſt every part bear the name of that whole?
5 That the Church of England doth ceaſe, becauſe diſcipline is for a while ſuſpended, is a concluſion not worth the refuting.
6 To underſtand by the Church of England, all of all Conditions that have indeed faith towards our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and ſo are of the Church in the eye of God, and are of a ſutable converſation towards men in practice; is to give a character of a great part of the inviſible Church Chriſts myſticall body to a particular conſtituted Church. What more confuſed notions then theſe?
Qu. 9. Whether Repentance be neceſſarie to the Remiſſion of ſins. Neg. according to Mr. B.
HErein we diſſent. We underſtand Evangelicall Repentance, and that ſo neceſſarie, as that God will never forgive our ſins untill we repent.
Mr. Bacon is very ſubtle in remarking the particle To. I cannot underſtand but a thing that is neceſſarie in any determinate caſe muſt be neceſſarie to that thing. But he is afraid that this ſame To would bring in Repentance as ſomething actually exiſtent (for ſo I conceive him) before the Remiſſion of ſins. But this follows no more then that we muſt bring faith to God before the Act of Juſtification. But if he will ſay, that we are juſtified by faith, and yet that faith is not neceſſarie to Juſtification, I muſt confeſſe his ſubtilties are beyond my comprehenſion.
1 For that charge of bordering nigh unto if not agreeing with that of Bellarmine, who affirms, that Repentance is a way to faith and juſtification in the remiſſion of ſins: If he underſtand it according to Bellarmine in the way of a previous diſpoſition, I utterly diſclaim it; Neither can it be collected from the Doctrine of Repentance as neceſſarie to the Remiſſion of ſins. And this anſwers the next Objection, that we make Repentance to go before the Remiſſion of ſins. I give this Inſtance, to have a reaſonable ſoul is neceſſarie to the being of a man, doth it therefore follow that a reaſonable ſoul is before that being? We ſay, that Repentance and Remiſſion are coexiſtent. For at the ſame inſtant, when God doth forgive ſin, he confers the grace of Repentance, that the ſoul might be capable of receiving forgiveneſſe: Act. 3.19. Repent and be converted, that your ſins may be blotted out. Whereas Mr. Bacon will have Remiſſion of ſins to go before Repentance in order of nature. He cannot reduce it to either of thoſe two wayes mentioned by Ariſtotle. After one way, that is ſaid to be firſt in nature from which the conſequence doth not return to ſome other thing, from whence the conſequence is drawn to that former. To inſtance one is in nature before two. For ſuppoſe two, and one is preſuppoſed; but ſuppoſe one, two doth follow. Therfore that is ſaid to be firſt in nature, à quo non retro ſequitur conſequendi ratio. Now in this manner Remiſſion of ſins cannot be before Repentance in order of nature, for then upon the ſuppoſal of Remiſſion, Repentance doth not follow. The ſecond way is in reſpect of cauſality. But remiſſion is not the cauſe of repentance. Beſides it ſhould be ſaid, your ſins are forgiven you, that you might repent, and not repent that your ſins might be forgiven. Wherefore Remiſſion of ſins doth require Repentance, as a means abſolutely neceſſarie, and that not pre-exiſtent, but coexiſtent.
Qu. 10. Whether there be a reall change in the perſon that is ſaved. Aff. according to Mr. B.
VVE agree in the tearms of the Queſtion, but we have no ſatisfaction therein. Truth is, we were too ſhort in the manner of propounding; we underſtood a reall change not in oppoſition to intentionall onelyonly, but to a relative change alſo, and that none onelyonly a change of condition but of nature. Such a change Mr. Bacon did never publickly clear among us. And in the cloſe of this Diſpute he did peremptorily refuſe to declare whether there were in a beleever the habits of grace, and inherent holineſſe.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Corbet, A Vindication of the Magistrates and Ministers of Gloucester (1646)