instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick 2. If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progress and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology God bids men wash them and purifie their hearts and cleanse their hands and make them new hearts c. and Peter saith Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit c. 1 Pet. 1.22 And we must cleanse our selves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God 2 Cor. 7.1 with many the like 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon 4. When you say that Faith as an instrument receiveth righteousness to Justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration Their meaning as far as I can understand of the whole business is this 1. They conceive of Christs own righteousness wherewith himself was righteous as given to us 2. They conceive of the act of faith as the instrument of receiving this 3. Upon the receiving of this they conceive we are justified as a man that receiveth Riches is Rich or that receiveth Honour is Honourable 4. Because faith is the instrument of receiving righteousness therefore say they It is the instrument of Justification For Justification Constitutivè is but a relation resulting from righteousness received This is the summe of the common judgement of most that I have read But these things must be more accurately considered I think And 1. It must be known that the Righteousness given us is not the Righteousness whereby Christs person was Righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a Righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us 2. 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 us in Remission Remission or Righteousness may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but Righteousness or Remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of Justification or at least but a secondary remote object even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches but the Man though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband And as a Patient being promised to be cured if he will take such a man for his Physitian and wholly trust him renouncing all other Here it is not receiving Health or a Cure that is the proper Condition of the Cure Health and Cure is the end for which the Physitian is Accepted and Trusted but it is himself as a sufficient faithfull Physitian which is the object of that receiving which is the condition of the Cure The like may be shewed in other Relations of a Master and Scholar Prince and Subjects Master and Servants c. Receiving the persons into relation from whom we expect the benefit goes before receiving the benefit it self by them which is usually the remote end and not the object of that first reception which is the condition Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be A receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation as he is offered in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying Faith to be the Receiving of Justification or Righteousness 3. In my judgement it is a meer fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousness that we may be justified Constitutivè thereby in such a sense as if the righteousness 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 Righteousness and to receive Justification is one thing Gods justifying us and pardoning our sin and his constituting us righteous and his giving us righteousness is all one thing under severall notions Yet as God giveth 1. Conditionally 2. Actually so man receiveth 1. Receptionè Ethica activâ figuratively called receiving 2. Receptione Physica propriâ passivâ The former goes before Justification but only as a small and secondary part of the condition if properly any it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the main condition The later is nothing at all but Justificari commonly called Passive Justification 4. Christs Satisfaction or Redemption solvend◠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 Redemption or Satisfaction our selves To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christs Righteousness or of Justification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as satisfier from the justifying act and to exclude from that act his Redemption by bloodshed satisfaction and merit For if it be only the receiving of righteousness that is the justifying act then it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgement of his Satisfaction and Redemption by his blood and so they must say of these as they do of the reception of Christ as Lord that it is the fides quae justificat sed non quà justificans 5. If faith shall be said to be the instrument of Justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that Righteousness 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 unless there be several justifying acts but every particular mercy hath a particular act of faith as the instrument of receiving it which is no Scripture doctrine 6. It must be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly is not Christ himself or his righteousness but the species of what is represented as its object And that faiths reception of Christ himself and his righteousness or of right to Christ is but Receptio metaphorica
absolute obligation already But it is Gods Covenant act that we are enquiring after In what sense is that called Outward 1. It cannot be as if God did as the dissembling creature ore tenus with the mouth only covenant with them and not with the heart as they deal with him 2. I know therefore no possible sense but this that it is called Outward from the Blessings promised which are outward Here therefore 1. I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. to have told us what those outward Blessings are that this Covenant promiseth 2. That he would have proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant distinct from the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Salvation and having other Conditions on our part For both these I cannot finde what outward blessings he means but Church Ordinances and Priviledges These consist in the Word Sacraments Prayer Discipline For the Word God oft bestoweth it on Infidels and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture and esteem it a fiction and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation These have the Word given them and so have other unregenerate men but not by Covenant that I know of Even the godly have no Covenant assuring them that for the future they shall enjoy the Word further then it is in their hearts except that promise with a reserve If God see it Good c. Where hath God said If thou wilt with thy mouth profess to believe I will give thee my Word preached 2. For Baptism It is part of our profession it self And though God hath commissioned us to Baptize such professours and their seed yet that is not a Covenant with them Nor do I know where God saith I will give thee Baptism if thou wilt but say thou believest or if thou wilt profess seriously a half faith More shall be said against this anon 3. For the Lords Supper the same may be said God hath no where made a Covenant that they shall have the Lords Supper that will profess faith To feign God to make a Covenant with man whose condition shall be orall profession and whose Blessing promised is only the nudum signum a little water to wash men and a little bread and wine without that Christ and Remission of sin Mortification and Spiritual Life which these Sacraments are in their Institution appointed to signifie seal and exhibit this is I think a groundless and presumptuous course 4. The same may be said of Discipline which alas few Churches do enjoy I desire therefore that those words of Scripture may be produced where any such outward Covenant is contained I take outward Ordinances and other blessings to be a second part of or certain appurtenances to the blessings of the great Covenant of Grace and given by Covenant on the same condition of true faith as Justification it self is but allowed or given by Providence where and when God pleaseth and sometime to Infidels that never made profession as to some of them the Word and temporal mercies and not assured by promise to any ungodly man that from Providence receiveth them At last after this necessary explication I come to Mr. Bl's words which I propounded to Reply to And first when he saith A dogmatical faith entitleth to Baptism I reply 1. A meer Dogmatical Historical faith is only in the understanding and that not Practical neither Now if this be the condition of the outward Covenant then it may consist with a Renouncing Christ and open disclaiming him yea a persecuting the very Christian name For a man may speculatively and sleightly believe the word of God to be true and yet may openly profess I love the world and my pleasure and honour so much better then Christ that I am resolved I will be no Christian nor be baptized nor take Christ on the terms that he is offered on At least he that professeth Assent only and will not profess consent also doth not profess Christianity For Christianity and true faith lieth in the Wils consent as well as the understandings Assent 2. And how can Mr. Bl call this Dogmatical faith a covenanting when covenanting is known to be the expression of the Wils consent and not the profession of an opinion 3. If a Dogmatical faith be the condition and make a man a Christian then he may be a Christian against his Will which was yet never affirmed But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith addeth by way of exclusion though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ Where he seems to imply though he express it not that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full But if so then 1. It is much more then Assent or a meer Historical Dogmatical faith 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real as to the Act and suited to the Object That is the real choice of such a Christ as is offered and on such terms If so it is Justifying faith If not either it is counterfeit as to the Act or but nominal as to the Object and is indeed no choosing of Christ Though perhaps it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object yet to the Essentials it must or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man He saith The Covenant is the Ground of Baptism otheewise Church-membership would evince no Title c. Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptism as it is officium a Duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized and his Promise or his Covenant Grant to be the Ground of mens Right to it as it is a Benefit given directly by God and their own true consent faith or covenanting which with me are all one for all that you say against it to be the condition of that Right But then I think that in foro Ecclesiae a dissembler may claim that Right which strictly he hath not and we must grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim And in that it is Ministers duty to Baptize such they may indirectly and quoad Ecclesiam be said to have Right to be Baptized I say Indirectly yea and improperly for it is not the result of Gods Covenant Grant to them but of his precept to his Ministers and his Instructions whom they ought to Baptize 2. I argued from Right of admission to Church-membership with Mr. T. and that Right I take the heart-covenant of Parent or parties themselves to be the condition of as to the Invisible Church-state and the Profession of that Covenant not alone but joyned with it to be the condition of true Right before God to Visible-membership though men are but to use him as one that hath true Right who by an hypocritical profession seems to have Right Where he takes me to grant his Antecedent that the Covenant is entred
is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of Grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional covenant may be made to them and though he have revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect but he is supposed to dispence his mercies to the unregenerate freely as Dominus absolutus or as Rector supra leges and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right And indeed in my opinion the Transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianism if not unavoidable save by a retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the Consequents to the Antecedent For grant once that common Faith doth coram Deo give right to baptism and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of baptism God having not instituted it to be an emptie sign to those that have true Right to it And it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special Grace that is the end of Baptism at lest Remission of sin And so upon the good use of common Grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special Grace which is taken for Pelagianism §. 53. WHen I had Replyed thus far to Mr. Blake I was much moved in my minde to have Replyed to his answer to Mr. Firmin on the like subject and also to have then proved that the children have no Right to baptism except the immediate Parent be a believer for the sake of any of his Ancestors and that the children of Apostates and wilfull obstinate wicked livers should not be baptized as theirs and to have answered what Mr. Bl. hath said to the contrary and this meerly in love to the Truth lest the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianitie seem no better then the other Religions of the world For I fear this loose Doctrine of Baptism will do more 〈◊〉 the pollution of the Church then others loose Doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much But I am very loth to go any further in Controversie then I shall be necessitated And if Mr. Firmin be living I conjecture by his writings that he is able easily to vindicate his own words Not that I have low thoughts of the abilities and worth of my dear and Reverend friend Mr. Blake but that I take his answers on those subjects to be very dilute si pace tanti viri ita dicam so great a disadvantage is an ill cause to the most learned man Mr. Firmin I know not any further then by his Book against Separation But in that Book I see so much Candor Ingenuitie Moderation Love to Peace and some convenient terms for Peace discovered that I am heartily sorrie that there are no more to second him and that his incitements to accommodation are no more laid to heart But the Peace-makers shall be blessed in the Kingdom of Peace how little soever they may succeed in this tumultuous world For as where envy and strife is contentious zeal there is confusion and every evil work so the fruit of Righteousness is sown in Peace of them that make Peace § 54. I Had thought also at the first view that it would have been necessary to have confuted Mr. Blakes 31. Chapt. when I found this Title A man in Covenant with God and received into the Vniversal Church Visible needs no more to give him accesss to and interest in particular Visible Churches But I know not whether he mean the access and interest of a stranger in passage or a Transient Member or of a fixed Member If of the latter I should have proved moreover that there is Necessary both his Cohabitation and his Consent to be a Member of that Church and his consent to submit to the particular Pastors of that Church as his Teachers and Spiritual Guides in the Lord. But I finde in the following pages Mr. Blake doth acknowledge all this himself I shall therefore pass on to some other subject only remembering Mr. Bl. that as it is not Number of Arguments but Weight that will carrie the Cause so it is not Number that I trust to and therefore if any one of those 26 Arguments foregoing be good though 25 be bad I must needs think the Cause bad which I argue against §. 55. Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods Works Mr Bl. CHap. 15. So Mr. Baxters Questionist qu. How do you make Faith and Repentance to be Conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our Conditions and Gods too Answer c. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an Absolute and Conditional Covenant and so making the whole in the Absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the Conditional this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain term◠deny that they are Gods Conditions and affirm them to be ours I know what God speaks in his Word concerning these works that He will write his Law in our hearts and put it into our inward parts that he will take away the heart of stone and give an heart of flesh which implyes this work of which we speak I know likewise what in particular is affirmed of Christ that he is the Author and Finisher of our Faith c. Yet all this rises not up higher to make them formally Gods acts and not ours Whose acts they be his Conditions they are this is evident But they are our acts we Believe and Repent it is not God that Believes it is not God that Repents c. Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods works which man in Covenant does respective to salvation in the Covenant tendered But the Apostle some may say in the next words tells us That it is God that works the Will and the Deed. There he seems to take them from us and ascribes the formality of them to God In this Cooperation of Gods whether they be formally our works or Gods let Isaiah determine Isa 26.12 Thou hast wrought all our works in us When God hath wrought it the work is ours we have the reward c. § 55 R. B. MR Blakes business here is to confute the answer that I gave to that objection A brief Reply may easily satisfie this confutation 1. I did explain in what sense these were called Covenants shewing that that which is called the Absolute Covenant is in some respect no part of Gods Legislative Will and so doth not jus conferre but only part of his Decretive Will revealed but that in other respects it belongs to the Legislative Will and may be called an absolute promise And so the word Conditions applyed to God is taken for the thing promised improperly called a condition but applied
THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
That Right to a benefit is the meer effect of the Gift Donation or Revealed Will of the Giver And therefore no Act of the Receiver hath any more interest or any other then it pleaseth the Donor to assign or appoint it to have So that suppositâ actus naturâ all the formall Civil interest comes from Gods meer Will as Donor for to the Absolute Benefactor doth it belong as to conferre all Right to his freely-given Benefits so to determine of the Time and Manner of Conveyance and so of the Conditions on the Receivers part The nature of the Act of Faith is caused by 〈◊〉 as Creator of the old and new Creature I mean of our natural faculties and their supernatural endowments or dispositions And therefore this is presupposed in ordine naturae to faiths Legal interest As God is first the Maker of earth before he is the Maker of Adams body Faith is to be considered as being Faith i. e. such acts exercised about such objects in order of nature before it can be rightly considered as justifying or the condition of Justification Seeing therefore it receives all its formal Legal interest from God as Legislator and Donor of Christ and his benefits which is after its material aptitude ad hoc officium its interest must not be gathered directly ex natura actus but ex constitutione donantis ordinantis And therefore you must first prove out of the Gospel that It is the Ordination of God that as Christs several actions have their several effects for us and on us so our faith shall be the proper condition of each of these various effects quâ apprehendit as it Beleeveth or Accepteth each distinct effect or Christ distinctly as the cause of that effect etiam consideratum in modo causandi But alas how invisible is the Proof of this in all your Writings I will leave the rest of the Propositions by which I intended here together to have opened some more of my sense till afterwards because I will not interrupt the present business Here either my Understanding is too shallow to reach your sense or else you are guilty quoad literam of very great confusion which one would think should have befallen you at any time rather then when you are blaming others of unsufferable confusion and yet quoad sensum involutum of more dangerous unscriptural unproved Distinction 1. Your expressions confound Christ and his Actions with mans faith in our Justification Or these two Questions By what are we justified ex parte Christi and By what are we justified ex parte nostri 2. Your implied sense even the heart of your reasoning consisteth in this assertion that As our Right as to the several benefits received is to be ascribed distinctly to several distinct Causes on Christs part so also as distinctly are the particular Benefits quoad Debitum vel Titulum to be ascribed to the several distinct apprehensions of these Benefits as most say or of Christ as diversly causing them as some say And here I cannot but complain of a treble injustice that you seem to me guilty of even in this elaborate Treat wherein you correct the Errors of so many others 1. Against the Truth and Word of God in implying it to have done that even in the great Point the Constitution of the Condition of Justification and Salvation which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing and cutting the Condition of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive your doctrine 2. And also in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reason for the proof of it which is injustice when you are Confuting others and Rectifying the world in so great a Point 3. Lastly and leastly it is evident injustice to your Friend to Accuse him for it is no hard matter to know whom you mean with confounding the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship which he still distinguisheth as exactly as he can though he do nor distribute as many offices to Faith as there are objects for it or as he doth to Christs several Works Why did you not name one line where I do confound the parts of Christs Offices I pray you do it for me in your next I will not trouble you much with Arguments for my opinion in this Point seeing you meddle with none already laid down and seeing I have done it over and over to others and because I am now but Answering to your Confutation Only let me tell you that the Proof lieth on your part For when I have once proved that God giveth Christ and his Benefits to man on Condition he will Beleeve in Christ or Accept him If you will now distinguish and say It is Accepting his satisfaction which is the Condition of Justification and Accepting him as King which is the Condition of Sanctification or Glorification c. you must prove this to be true For non est distinguendum vel limitandum ubi Lex non distinguis vel limitat If God say Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and you say Beleeving in him as Priest is the only Condition of saving thee from guilt and Beleeving in him as King is the only Condition of saving thee from the power of sin c. you must prove this which you say Or if you will not say It is the only Condition but the only instrument you give up the Cause For the word Condition is it that expresseth its neerest Legal Interest in justifying or conveying any Right and that which you call its Instrumentality is but the natural Aptitude and Remote Interest 1. It is the Receiving of Christ as Christ that justifieth as the Condition of Justification But he is not received as Christ if not as Lord-Redeemer 2. Justifying faith is say the Assembly the Receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord and not as Saviour only Therefore c. 3. Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ as a full Saviour But that cannot be except he be received as Lord. For to save from the power of sin is as true a part of the Saviours Office as to save from the guilt 4. Justifying faith receiveth Christ as he justifieth us or as he is to justifie us But he doth justifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor as he satisfieth and meriteth in the form of a servant under the Law 5. If receiving Christ as a Satisfier and Meriter be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds you must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification For Christ Merited one as well as the other 6. Rejecting Christ as King is the condemning sin Therefore receiving him as King is the justifying faith Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring
c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
Honour or of the Prince as one to honour him that is the sole condition of his Honour Nor is it accepting of Riches that is the sole condition of enriching him But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom that is the Condition of all together and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit as another Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman and the Prince having Ransomed her doth send this offer to her That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince to love honour and obey him he will deliver her and make her his Queen and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches Here now if the Question be What it is on his part that Redeemed her What that Delivered her What that honoured her What that enriched her each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause and the causes not confounded And she must distinctly apprehend by what way and cause each priviledge comes But if you ask only What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits Why it is but one entire undivided Condition before mentioned Will you here subtilly distinguish and say that her taking him to deliver her is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance and her taking him to Dignifie her is the sole condition of her Dignity and her taking him as Rich or to enrich her is the sole condition of her enriching No It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches that is the sole condition of enriching her Yet if any should in one Question include both What on his part did save her from death and what on her part then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text in our case It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer I should wrong you by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness if I should spend words in application of this to our case Having been so much too tedious already I will only adde That the common doctrine in this Point requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit and so one act of faith Justifieth another Adopteth c. And that act which receiveth Justification which they call the Passive instrument thereof in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam And so with them Credere Justificari must be Synonimall termes For so to receive Justification is nothing but to be Justified §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideon or Sampsons valour that were their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-tapt them and yet he was not thereby Justified as 1 Cor. 4.4 §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith An act of Justification If you speak properly you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè either that some act of faith is an act of Justification as the efficient but that 's farre from truth to beleeve and to justifie differ or else that it is an act constituting Justification But that is as far from truth for then Credere should be Justificari If you speak improperly you must mean either An act effecting Justification as it seems you do which is unsound as well as improper or else An act which is the Condition of Justification which is sound though improper 2. Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of Justification or not all of them The proper importance of your words is for the former But that is a dangerous untruth for vers 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith they saw the promises i. e. the good promised a farre off and were perswaded of them and embraced them c. But which soever you mean you should have proved your assertion It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification as begun But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification I do not think but that act by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification though it were the preparing the Ark being moved with fear I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous and that by which Enoch pleased God and without which it is impossible to please him had some hand in Justification I think these four great acts mentioned v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification 1. To beleeve that God is viz. that he is God the Chief Good the first and last the principal efficient and Ultimate End c. 2. The diligent seeking of him 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so 4. Coming to him If this be distinct from the second When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth from his praises 3. Yet you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideons valour acts of Justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith its true Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts and so you mean not the obedience valour c. but the act of faith which excited it then you might call those acts of justifying faith But if I had called valour and obedience so I should have been blamed 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification Do you think that any act of faith is Justification You mean if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine the instrument of Justification 5. But then how come you to say next that it is Christs blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which improperly may be called also the Matter of it But I think it is neither our Justification formally nor the instrument of it in proper speech 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been Which is the justifying act of faith and which not and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11.
to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble 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 justifieth 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 inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as
Service If a man take a woman in Marriage and estate her in all his Lands on condition that she will be to him a chast faithfull Wife here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition as to be his Wife So if God say He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved and he that hath not shall perish Here as faith is the principall part of the condition so that it be a Working is the secondary and as real a part of the condition as that it be faith And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving at Judgement you must be justified by producing your faith it self so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith 5. As for your single Argument here I answer 1. 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 Others may see it and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words though you or I could not If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text we shall presume to make so great an alteration meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily q. d. And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled i e. historically spoke truly of that which was long before done Abraham beleeved God i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience and it i. e. beleeving and so obeying or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death was imputed to him c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection knowing that this would be objected he might say q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled which saith c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only yet when he was called to works he was justified also by his obedience 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation according to your exposition as mine For you may as well say How do these accord He was justified by a working faith and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith He was justified by faith For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith and yet this is it the Text speaks but that he was justified by works seconding faith or as you say by a Working-faith Where if you put any emphasis on the term Working and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving you say as much as I and then James must cite that Text expositorily and then whether according to my exposition or yours varies not the case seeing one saith as much for Works as the other But I suppose you will say Faith which justifieth must be working but it justifieth not qua operans Ans 1. True nor qua fides i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working If you say Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification that we beleeve with a working faith and so that it be working is part of the Condition you say the same in sense as I. If you say either that working is necessary as a sign that faith is true or that the nature of true faith will work both are truth but to say this is the Apostle's sense is to null all his Argumentation For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem even that Justification which he cals Impuâ—ing of Righteousness and that by God And he argueth not only Physically what the nature of faith will produce but morally what men must do to such ends And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term Works signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and so its true Or it signifieth all good actions and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works If you say But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works I easily grant it That they be Good floweth from the Precept That they Justifie floweth from the Promise constituting them the Condition If they should justifie because Good their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousnessâ— But yet they must be Good before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness consisting in their aptitude to this work and to Glorifie the free Justifier Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture look not with such a face as your Proposition This may serve to your following words §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifieth us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtle a Notion We use to speak otherwise of faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not â—ight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 18.26 Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a righteousness which faith receives Christ dwels in us by faith Eph. 3.17 By faith we take him in and give him entertainment We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gal. 3.14 These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies but some body will be sorry
or angry which side soever I take I am sorry that I have made you sorry but not for that Doctrine which caused it which yet I shall be as soon as I can see cause for it 2. Why would you not here attempt to prove that which you are so sorry should be denied viz. That faith is the instrument of Justification Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonstration of the errour of what you complain of 3. I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of Justification as you are that I deny it And as your sorrow urged you to publish it so did mine urge me And my sorrow had these causes which I am content may be well compared with yours that it may appear which were the juster and greater 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it 3. I thought it of dangerous consequence to say that man iâ— the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins 4. Yet all this had never caused mâ— to open my mouth against it for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels But for the next viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality but they laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference between us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification say they it is that they Fundamentally erre and we Principally differ And that in these four Points 1. About the formall cause of our Righteousness which say these Divines is the formall Righteousness of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde In the habitual Righteousness of his humane nature and others The natural Righteousness of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation herein 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 Justifieth which say most of our forreign Reformers is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof I doubt not but all these four are great Errors Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists That which troubled me 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 the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion when they finde that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause what wonder if they judge our Cause naught This is no fancy nor any needless fears but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause as will not easily be healed Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase and not made it so great a part of our Religion to the hazarding of the whole I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can finde them You begin with and say more for faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ You can say no more of me concerning this but that it will be scarce allowed to be so called This intimates that I make it no matter of contention nor do I know how I could have said less if any thing when it s only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention and not the sense which I thought with so much tenderness I might do upon reason given it being no Scripture phrase If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument They that say the Habit is the instrument speak not properly but far more tolerably then the others do If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul then so may other Habits And why is not this language more in use among Logicians if it be so unquestionably proper But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument for you answer only to what I say against that I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving in Answer to another Learned Brother which for the necessity of distinguishing here I would have added but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive Receiving in a Civil Ethical less proper sense is but the Act of accepting what is offered When it is only a Relation or Jus ad rem that is offered Consent or Acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession or proper Passive reception that it is therefore called Receiving it self yet is indeed no efficient cause of the Passive reception or possession but a conditio fine qua non and a subjective disposition and so makes the subject capable of the benefit but being no efficient it can be no instrument Yet still I say that if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase specially if some men had the same ingenuity as others have that say it is but instrumentum metaphoricum But to say that the act of faith is the instrument of Ethical Active reception which is it that I argued against is to say Receiving Christ is the instrument of it self Now let 's see what you say to this 1. You say It s too subtill a Notion That deserves no Reply 2. You say We use to speak otherwise of faith That 's no proof that you speak properly You say Faith is the eye of the soul and the eye is not sight Faith is the hand c. Ans 1. Strange proof not only by Metaphors but by metaphors of meer humane use 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the soul as distinct from sight and the hand as distinct from receiving Tell us then what actual seeing and receiving is To speak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Assertion Next you say Scripture speaks otherwise That 's to the purpose indeed if true You cite Act. 18.26 where is no such matter If By signifie an instrumentall cause It is either Alwaies or Sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies If but sometimes Why do you take it for granted that it so signifies here Why did you not offer some proof This is easie Disputing Next you say Why else is this Righteousness sometime called the
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
vel actio ad receptionem propriam necessaria and that the true reception which is pati non agere doth follow faith and therefore Christ himself is received only Receptione fidei ethicâ activâ metaphoricâ Species Christi predicati recipiatur receptione naturali intelligendo Jâ—â— ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passivâ propriâ That which is conditionally given on condition of acceptance or the like and offered to be accepted this is received Receptione fidei ethicâ whereupon followeth the actual efficacious giving of that thing the condition being performed which suspended it and this the beleever receiveth Receptione passivâ propriâ but it is not his Faith that receiveth it 7. The great thing therefore that I would desire to be observed is this that though faith were an instrument of the foresaid objective or of the Ethical Metaphorical recption of Christ which yet is not properly being ipsa Receptio yet it is not therefore the instrumental cause of the passive proper reception of Right to Christ or Righteousness Of this it is only the condition and not the proper instrument For I shall shew hereafter that it is impossible it should be both It doth morally qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified as M. Benjam Woodbridge saith truly in his excellent Sermon of Justification The reason of this is That it is only Donation or the will of the Donor signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own Benefits The Receiver is not the Giver and therefore not the conveyer of Right Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is only giving that effecteth this right Now if the giving the donation had been absolute it had absolutely conveyed right and faith would have had no hand in it as being no condition Or if the gift had constituted another condition that other would have had the causing interest that faith now hath ut causa siue qua non So that the the nearest and formal interest of faith is It s being the condition and its apprehension of its object is but the remote aptitudinal reason being ipsa fides The great thing therefore that I affirm is this That if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousness yet doth it not justifie proximè formaliter As such but As the condition of the gift performed 8. And if you will speak improperly and call faith as it is the performed-condition instrumentum Receptionis it is not therefore instrumentum Justificationis In a few words thiâ— is the summe 1. Faith is an Ethical Metaphorical reception of Christ 2. If any will speak so improperly as to call this The instrument of this Ethical reception I will not contend with him 3. This Ethical reception Active is constituted by Christs Testament the condition of Passive proper reception of Right to Christ and with him to his Benefits Faith must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of Right 4. It justifies therefore quâ conditio and not quâ fides in Christum or as they improperly speak quâ instrumentum Christum apprehendens 5. If any will take the word Instrument so improperly and largely as to comprehend the condition then you may so further say Faith is not only the instrument of Active reception but of true Passive reception of Right to Christ and so of receiving Justification 6. But this is quâ conditio prâ—stita and not qua apprehensio Christi 7. And therefore every act that is part of this condition may so be called instrumentum recipiendi 8. And if it were as they would have it that faith is the instrument eo nomine quia Christum apprehendit then every grace that apprehendeth Christ must be the instrument too And doubtless Knowledge Love Hope Delight c. do apprehend or receive Christ in some sort and have him for their object 9. Though I will not contend with him that will say Fides non quà fides sed quà câ—nditio praestita est instrumentum morale recipiendi jus ad Christum justiâ—iam ab ipso promeritam Yet as I think he laieth a snare for himself and others in turning the plain and proper term Condition into an improper term instrumentum Recipiendi so I think it not to be endured that therefore faith or any act of man should be called the instrument of Justification For though you may in a strained speech say that Receptio moralis activa being made the medium or condition Receptionis physicae passivae may therefore â—e called instrumentum recipiendi and Credere vel acceptare said to be moraliter vel reputativè pati and so every condition quà condition be termed a Receptive instrument I say though I will not quarrell with this speech for meer unfitness yet it is a higher and more dangerous errour to say That faith or any condition is therefore instrumentum Justificationis It is not an instrumental efficient cause of the effect because it is medium fine quo non recipitur As Realis vel naturalis receptio Justificationis is not Justificare sed Justificari so much more evident is it that Moralis imputativa Receptio Justificationis non est Justificare sed medium necessarium ad Justificari 10. Lastly I say again what I said in my Aphorismes These two Questions must be distinguished What is the nearest reason of faiths interest in Justification And what is the remote reason or why did God assign faith to this office To the first this is the only true Answer Faith Justifies rather then any thing else because God in framing his deed of gift was pleased to make faith the condition The meer constitution of the Donor is the cause To the second this is my Answer God chose faith to this office of being the justifying condition rather then other duties because it was fittest as being in its own nature An acceptance of a freely given Christ and Life with him which men call the instrumentality I have the more fully opened my meaning here together about this point though with some repetitions that I might leave no room for doubting of it and misunderstanding me §. 12. Mr Bl. THe Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Faith then is the act of man man beleeves yet the instrument of God that justifies only beleevers §. 12. R. B. 1. THe Spirits working in Sanctification is nothing to our question of Justification 2. The Spirit worketh our first faith without faiths co-working and that is more then nothing 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith move it self and that is more then nothing 4. It is not so easily proved as said that the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any
evil without the co-working or instrumentality of faith But these are beside the point 5. When you have laid down one Proposition Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Concedo totum Is that your Conclusion Would you have no more Who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justifie man unless his faith be the instrument of it And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself when you say Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God No nor with him neither For none can forgive sins but God only even to another but who can forgive himself Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself for I did not beleeve it 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall efficient causation of our faith Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved and not barely affirmed §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of Agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an Article of his faith 1. What you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate unless that which is never a principall 2. Nor know I whether by sole you mean Materialiter Formaliter vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument Here the instrument is but one though the matter of it may be of divers parts Sure this is not your sense that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument 2. An instrument may be called sole formally when it it is the only instrument and there is no other concurreth to the effect If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments then it is more nakedly then truly asserted nor do they hold ever the more or less whether the instrument be sole or not else they would hold against few instruments in the world For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument especially of subordinate instruments though it may be usual as to coordinate 3. An instrument may be called sole Respectivè as to the principal cause viz. It is not the instrument of many principals but of one only Is this your meaning that my exceptions would hold if faith were only mans instrument or only Gods but not when it is both If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof or reason why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal as of a single surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that 2. If God and man be both principals as they must be if faith be the instrument of both then either coordinate or subordinate but neither of these as I have argued before Man neither forgives himself under God or with God if you speak of one and the same forgiveness Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness whereby a man may forgive himself whereof Seneca speaks de Ira when he saith Why should I fear any of my Errors when I can say See thou do so no more I now forgive thee lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations that here is such a concurrence of Agents that God makes use of the act of man to produce the effect of Remission and that as an instrument and not only as a meer condition fine qua non §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of Justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification You here come more short of satisfying me against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument You say This indeed is Gods not mans I say There is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum You say It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification I answer 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification as to humble to give faith to Regenerate c. But that 's nothing to our business 2. But as to the act of Justification or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousness I say It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability 3. If you should mean that of it self i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition it is not able I answer that 's not fitly called disability Or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coâ—fficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition were performed §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slayes not nor an ax an instrument to hâ—w when it cuts not Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification where it justifies not §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words I know you had not leasure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified Do you think I know not a Cause and
nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive whether it be produced by the principal agent or not so it do but subserve that agent 2. If this proposition be true there is never an active instrument in rerum natura For Angels and men calor frigus and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects and they all receive activity and power from God Those that are most for passive instruments say calor is an active instrument But if I use fire to warm my beer or burn any thing this receives its activity and power from another and therefore must be no active instrument with you If there be no active instrument when I thought there had been no passive instrument I was fâ—r wide 3. But what mean these strange words of Activity and power received if the instrument be not active Is not the Potentia here meant Potentia efficiendi and is not all effection by action And is not the activity here mentioned an activity in causing What and yet no active instrument 1 Be not offended with me Dear brother if I confess that you and I differ in more points than one and in our Philosophy as well as Theology §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification and hath its power of working elsewhere §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too Is there any thing in the whole world that can mâ—râ— unfiâ—ly be called a passive instrument then the Covenant of Justification Why it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefiâ— Though it be but actione morali ut â—ignum â—â—lâ—ntatis donatoris The Debitum results from the Grant Deed of Gift Testament or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance as from its fundamentum proximum And is the fundamentum proximum Relatioâ—is a passive Instrument 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere that is from God but not from mans faith Farre be such a thought from my soul 3. I suspect by your words when you say the Word is produced and held sorth of God and by your discourse all along that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the â—oul as the Papists say and our Divines say It sanctifies or as it justifies in forâ— conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort But Sir I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but as it is Lex promulgata Faedus Testamentum and so doth convey Right or Constitute the dueness of the benefit This is the Record that God hath given us eternall Life and this Life is in his Son c. 1 Joh. 5.11 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given to us and thus the Covenant justifies as a written pardon under the Kings hand or an act of grace or oblivion doth pardon Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris vel Legis as distinct from Justificatio Judicis vel per sententiam I referre you to what I said in the cited place §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.32 But it is those that beleeve that are justified Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut siat potens efficax quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium with many more of the like which you make necessary to be enquired after And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new that I think never man printed before you for so far as I can learn at present That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace perhaps some before you have delivered but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying I think not any 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof If you do I desire your Reader may not do so What though only 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 causes sine quibus non or else they all are efficientâ— and give efficacy and power to other efficients What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother and thank him for it to another if he be married by such a time to a third if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament No Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed Why is that Because all such instruments work morally only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time and but on such terms and so he frames the conditions himself as obices to suspend his Testament or
other instrument from acting or effecting till they are performed but not to give efficacy and power to his Testament If the gift be in diem the instrument receives not efficacy and power from the Time quando venit dies no more doth it per praestationem conditionis 3. Your terms of Faith 's 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 real operation on mans heart For neither Scripture nor Divines use to say The Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit Nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by enditing the Gospel unless by the Spirit you mean the Godhead in Essence and not in Personality Sanctification is ascribed to the Spirit as the efficient but so is not forgiveness and Justification Nor do I like your phrase as to sanctification it self That faith conveys efficacy and power to the Gospel through the Spirit For 1. I had rather say The Gospel and Spirit or the Spirit by the Gospel convey efficacy and power to faith then faith to the Gosâ—el 2. How faith should convey this through the Spirit is quite beyond my reach Doth the Spirit receive any influx from faith and thereby a power and then convey this to the Gospel from our faith But it s like you mean the Spirit doth it through faith §. 25. Mr Bl. SO that neither the Gospel nor faith in the Gospel should in this office of an instrument in Justification be denied their due honour The Gospel received by faith is a plenary instrument in this work and faith embracing the tender and promise of the Gospel The Gospel is an outward instrument saith Ravanelly faith an inward they both make up one instrument full and compleat yet faith is more aptly and fitly called an instrument Seeing that faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word the Word may be without faith and so no instrument at all but faith alway presupposeth the Word of promise it is not without its object §. 25. R. B. 1. HAd you first proved any such honour due to faith and so to man as to be the instrument of Justification yea and more fitly then the Gospel so to be called then you might fairly have thus concluded But I like not Arguments that have but one part being all Conclusion I will say more for the Gospels instrumentality Signum voluntatis Donatoris constituens jus ad beneficium Donatum etsi in diem vel sub conditione est Donatoris instrumentum maximè proprium Sed Testamentum Christi est signum voluntatis diviâ—â— jus nostrum ad Christum Justificationem passivam constituens viz. sub conditione actualiter quando praestatur conditio Ergo Testamentum Christi est instrumentum hujus donationis maximè proprium For the major examine it by all the qualifications of an instrument and it will appear undoubted 1. Subservit causae principali scilicet voluntati donatoris 2. Actio ejus principalis sunt eadem actio scilicet Donatio vel constituere debitum beneficii 3. The true definition of an instrument agrees to it Instrumentum est quod ex directione alterius principalis agentis influit ad produceudum effectum se nobiliorem Vel per quod causa alia operatur sic ut hoc elevetur ad effectum se nobiliorem seu ultra perfectionem suam actionis suae 4. Yea it is the most perfect instrument for instrumentum eo melius est quanto magis est fini proportionatum ut Aquin. 1.2 ae q. 188. a. 7. But Gods Legal grant is most perfectly proportioned to the conveyance of right to Christ and his benefits Prove this much of faith as to Justification before you again tell the world that faith is more fitly called an instrument of Justification 2. If the Gospel received by faith be a plenary instrument of justifying as you say Then 1. How is faith more fitly called an instrument 2. Then Recipere Evangelium is instrumentum justificandi maximè proprium as you think making the Gospel a compleat instrument 3. If faith and the Gospel be both full compleat instruments then either ejusdem effecti per eandem actionem vel per diversas not per eandem actionem For 1. Then they should be one instrument 2. Their esse is so different that their operari must needs be different 2. If per diversas actiones then coordinate or subordinate You think subordinate it seems and that faith gives power and efficacy to the Gospel If so then faith doth modo sensu nobiliore Justificare quam Testamentum But that 's farre from truth For 1. It is most proper to say The Covenant-grant justifieth or the Law of grace justifieth but it is less proper to say Faith justifieth and Scripture never saith so that I know of but that we are justified by faith 2. You say your self that faith is but a passive instrument but the Testament is active morally in its kinde 3. Recipere Evangelium is not so properly Justificare as is immediate Justificare Remittere Jus ad Christum remissionem constituere which is the Gospels act Credere non est tam propriè Justificare Much more might be said of this if necessary 4. How plain a contradiction do you speak that faith and the Gospel are two instruments and that both make one compleat instrument They might have been said to be materially two things making one instrument without contradiction but not without notorious untruth 5. For it is no better when you say they make up one compleat instrument For 1. You said before that faith gives power and efficacy to the Gospel which if true then the Gospel is an instrument subordinate to faith and therefore not one with it 2. The Gospel is causa totalis in suo genere fully as an instrument conveying right quando vel venit dies vel praestatur conditio therefore it is not causa partialis vel pars causae 3. There is such a disparity in the actions of each viz. Credere and Remittere vel donare Christum Remissionem that they cannot possibly as causae partiales constitute one compleat cause For one immediatly and properly produceth the effect the other not so 4. You say that they are both passive instruments But so they cannot make one instrument For surely nec patiuntur idem nec ab eodem nec formam Justificationis Evangelium patiendo recipit Though indeed your authority must do more then your reasons to prove it of either 6. If â—aith be more aptly and fitly as you speak called an instrument then it is a properer speech to â—ay Faith or mâ—n by faith forgiveth sins then that The Covenant-grant or Condonation or act of pardon doth forgive them Seâ— Absit 7. When you have well proved that repeated dangerous assertion That faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word you may next take
the boldness to speak out its consequents and say Gods Word is the Believers wordâ— the Beleever enableth Gods Law of grace to forgive him The Law of grace is defective in power till the Beleever perfect it Credere non est actuâ— subditi vel Legatarâ—â— sed Rectoris Judiâ—is Testatoris Ergo Homo habet authoritatem seipsum Justificandi sibi ipsi condoâ—andi credendo hanc excâ—â—et authoritatem 8. Your strange proof is oft answered What though the Word without faith is no instrument Doth it follow that therefore either faith makes it an inâ—trument or is an instrument it self The King grants an Act of Oblivion or Pardon to a thousand Traytors on condition that by such a day they come and seek and thankfully accept it Doth their seeking or thankfull Acceptance give power and efficacy as an instrument to the Kings Pardon Or are the Pardon and Acceptance one compleat instrument Or is it more fit to call the Traytors Acceptance the instrument of his Pardon then the Kings Act Credat qui credere potis est Twisse saith An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem pecâ—â—torum esse effectionem fidei tametsi nisi credentibus contingat ista Remissio Dices fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendum Esto atque hac ratione dicatur effectio fidei sed â—u genere tantum causae dispusitivae Twiss Vinâ— Grat. l. 1. part 2. § 25. p. mihi 273. So he oft saith both of Faith and Works that they justifie only ut causae dispositivae and therefore in one kinde of causality and not as instruments properly so called §. 26. Mr Bl. THerefore to winde up this whole Dispute in which I have studied to be brief though I fear some will think I have been too tedious seeing that those that make faith the instrument in Justification make the Gospel an instrument likewise and dare not go about to strip it of its honour I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument will acknowledge faith to be an instrument in like manner being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned and so all the Controversie will be fairly ended and concluded Amen §. 27. R. B. 1. IF this be a Dispute I am none of those that think it too long I scarce finde a line in many Pages It is in my eyes so short that it seems as nothing 2. Your motion for decision will take when man is proved to be God then mans act of Beleeving may fairly share of the same honour with Gods act of Legal forgiving And yet then I shall demurre on the preferring it But till then I love Peace and Unity but not on such a compromising as to share the honour of the Redeemer with the redeemed of the Creator with the creature of the Sovereign pardoning with the Traytor pardoned 3. I like Amen better then Ergo and Herberts transformation I much applauâ—â— but not the substitution of Amen for a necessary Ergo. This â—imium 〈◊〉 disputandi genus that can prove all with a word an ipse dico and wipe off all that is opposed with a wet finger I never liked I must next take in what you adde afterwards §. 27. Mr Bl. Pag. 91. Obj. JT is said by another If faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace then it can be no instrument of our Justification If it be a condition in this Covenant it justifies as a condition and then it cannot justifie as an instrument and so I pull down what I build and run upon contradictions Answ I answer I should rather judge on the contrary that because it is a condition of the Covenant in the way as it is before expresâ— that it is therefore an instrument in our Justification God â—enders the gift of righteousness to be received by faith He Covenants for this faith for acceptation of it By beleeving theâ— we keep Covenant and receive Christ for Justification we as well do what God requires as receive what he tenders we do our duty and take Gods gift and thereby keep Covenant and receive life and so faith is both a condition and an instrument §. 27. R. B. BUt do you take officium and conditio to be all one I easily yield that we may do our duty in beleeving though it were an instrument But a condition is more then a duty yea then a duty to be performed for the obtaining of a benefit Cujacius saith Conditio est Lex addita negotio qua doâ—ec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post-facto confirmetur Or as Mynfinger Cum quid in casum incertum i. e. contingens qui potest tendere ad esse vel non esse conferiur And they are divided into Potestativas Casuales Mixtas Ours is of the former sort and I define it viz. the condition of the Covenant to be Actio voluntaria de fuâ—â—ro a Deo Legislatore Christo Testatore in neva Legâ— Federe Testamento requisita ut ex ejus praestaâ—ione constituatur jus actuale ad beneficium vel ut obligationem eventum suspendat donâ—â— praestetur For ex stipulatione conditionali neque obligatio â—eque actio ulla est anâ—equam conditio eveniat Quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Vt Myâ—sing in Iustâ—â— Schol. pag 5 â—â— â— You must consider that it is not de conditione contractus venditionis emptionis vel 〈◊〉 vel â—â—â—ationis or any the like that is propter preâ—ium but it is the condition 〈…〉 but somewhat partaking naturae Feudi as to sâ—me of the Benefits This being premised it is evident that faith cannot justifie both as a condition and as an instrument of Justification For 1. Either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect But it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different nearest causal interests To be an instrument of justifying is to efâ—ect it per modum instrumenti To be the condition is to be the causa sine quâ non which doth not effect but suspend the effect till performed It hath the name of a cause and sometime is ex materia a moral impulsive and sometime not but it hath the truâ— nature of such a medium ad finem as is no cause As faith cannot be both efficiens effecti effectum ejusdem â—ficientis nor be both the efficient and constitutive cause material or formal no more can it produce one and the same effect of Justification per modum instrumenti efficientis and per modum conditionis sine quâ non 2. Else you must feign the pardoning act to run thus I will pardon thee on condition thou wilt pardon thy self by beleeving as the instrument and not only on condition thou accept Christ 3. It belongeth to the pardoning instrument to conferre the right to the thing that
as full a Righteousness in relation to this part of the Law as if the matter of faith and obedience were more perfect The strongest faith doth not make you Righteous in a higher degree then the weakest that is true For the strongest is but praestatio conditionis which is the Righteousness in question and so is the weakest It is not therefore from this act of the Law determination of the condition that our graces or duties are diversified as more or less perfect in degree but it is in respect to the other act or part of the Law determination of duty as such So that in a word Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernatural grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the Materia requisita vel subjectum proximum Justitiae consistit in indivisibili Only let it be remembred that I speak this of the promise of impunity and glory everlasting absolutely considered and not of a comparative degree of glory For it may be yet consistent with this that a greater faith love and obedience may have a promise of greater glory Remember also I pray you if you will do me justice 1. That I did only assert in my Aphorismes 1. A metaphysical perfection of Being and 2. A perfection of sufficiency in order to its end in our righteousness 2. And the same transcendental perfection of Being I affirmed of holiness it self only adding that it being a Quality may be intended and remitted but Righteousness being a Relation cannot ex parte sui Now which of these perfections of Righteousness do you deny Not that of sufficiency as to the end as you expresly affirm It must therefore be the transcendental perfection of Essence And if that be denied then righteousness is no righteousness for so omne ens perfectum est And then you must maintain that it is but equivocally called righteousness but indeed is not sn But yet this I finde you not about but rather confess the contrary not only by affirming inherent Righteousness but also affirming a double perfection of it which you are pleased to call subjective and objective and which can be no less then I here affirmed §. 29. Mr Bl. 1 ISaiah I am sure saith All our Righteousness are as filthy rags Isa 64.6 No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet laies upon our Righteousness 2 Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule §. 29. R.B. 1. WIll not all the imperfections of our Righteousness which in the Aphor. I asserted serve to warrant the Prophets comparison without our denying the perfection of Being That is that it is truly Righteousness 2. My opinion of that Text is that the Prophet means plainly We are an unrighteous people or we have no other Righteousness to glory of but what is indeed no righteousness at all no more then the filthy rags are clean no nor so much for they may possibly have some part clean Yet that this is called Righteousness is no wonder when the next words are Negative q. d. our Righteousness is none or is unrighteousness yea it is not unusual to give the name either from common estimation or the persons profession and especially from those actions which use to be the matter of Righteousness though the form being wanting they are not now actually the matter So I think Solomon forbiddeth overmuch Righteousness Further it 's considerable what Righteousness it is that the Prophet there speaks of whether universal or particular and whether Legal consisting in absolute perfection or Evangelical consisting in sincerity and also whether he speak of himself and each individual or only of the Jewish Nation described according to the generality or main part of them 3. As for that next passage where you tell us what you understand not I confess it seems strange to me but I hope you make it no argument against the opinion which you oppose If it were a good argument indeed then the less a man understands the better he might dispute But let us see what it is that you understand not 1. How holiness should be imperfect taken materially Sure you understand that for what else did you mean in the foregoing words No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness 2. It is therefore no doubt the other branch that you mean how Righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule 1. That Righteousness in sensu Legali sorensi is a relation consisting in a conformity or congruency to the Rule I suppose you understand seeing both Schoolmen and Protestant Divines do so commonly affirm it e. g. Scotus and Dr Twiss oft 2. That omne ens est essentialiter perfectum I suppose also you understand and so that this Relation must be a perfect Relation or none at all where there is the form there is the being and therefore the word Righteousness spoken formaliter of our Righteousness must needs express that which is truly Righteousness and not equivocally so called 3. Yea I suppose you understand that Relations do not admit of magis and minus ex parte sui but only when they are founded in quality ex parte fundamenti vel subjecti At least if any would deny that yet the relation in question being of the nature of Parity and not of similitude only which are both implied in conformity doth not so much as ratione fundamenti admit of intension or remission These things being all so generally acknowledged you leave me only to admire that you should say You understand them not §. 30. Mr Bl. WE may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and referre it to a Rule and Righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any Rule at all §. 30. R.B. 1. WHether you take holiness as signifying a Quality or Relation there is no doubt but it hath its form or else it could not have a Being Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that 2. But that holiness in our common use of the word doth formally consist in the relation of our qualities or acts to the Law especially in that relation of conformity that we are now speaking of I finde not yet proved Holiness taken for the qualities and acts themselves is no relation Holiness taken for Dedication to God is such a kinde of Relation as Donation is It referres to God as the terminus For omne sanctum est Deo sanctum But to be Dedicated to God and to be conformed to the Law or Rule are not all one 3. If you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your mindes I will not contradict you for I finde no pleasure in contending about words But for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood 4. That you may use
their own conditions I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond Dispute These things being thus 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law and who knows what you mean 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears that you even you should so wholly own this and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only as I think you do 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature Doth not the Law of nature as well as the positive Law determine de Debito paenae as well as de Debito officii and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature is that the only Rule 1. What say you for matter of duty to the positive Precepts of the Gospel of Baptism the Lords Supper the Lords day the Officers and Government of the Church c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these If you say They are reducible to the second Commandment I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution And doth this alone suffice Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship 2. Do you take the Precept de genere to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus or to be a sufficient Rule without them If the Moral Law or Law of Nature be to you the only Rule and a perfect Rule then you need no other And if God had only written the ten Commandments or only said in general Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions would it have been your duty to have Baptized administred the Lords Supper c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty If not as nothing more certain then the general Law is not the only Rule nor sufficient in omni parte though sufficient in suo genere ad partem propriam for the constitution of Worship Ordinances Church Offices c. or acquainting us with our duty therein Moreover did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers do any more then was done before or not If no more 1. It is superfluous 2. Shew where it was done before 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first If more then the former was not sufficient nor is now the only Rule Moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ a Lawgiver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Isa 2.3 And is he not the Anointed King of the Church and therefore hath Legislative power And will he not use the principal part of his Prerogative 2. I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a general command of beleeving all that God revea◠〈◊〉 is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation is not the only Rule but that particular prescript is part And a general command of receiving every offered benefit is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits 3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will the former being a passage to the later in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect and in the later perfected so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them oft times and so the Laws of God have their Narratives Histories and Doctrines concerning the grounds the subject the occasion c. as well as the more essential parts viz. Precepts and Sanction These I spoke not of before in the distinctions Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge Judgement and Faith I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law a sufficient and only Rule for your faith in the Article of Christs Incarnation Birth Life Innocency Miracles Death Burial Resurrection Assension full Dominion in his humane nature c. Was this Article in the Creed before Christs coming Except ye beleeve that I am he ye shall die in your sinnes Besides matter of faith is also matter of duty for it is our duty to beleeve all these Truths But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour before he was Incarnate or to believe that Christ was Dead Ascended c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving 4. But what if all this had been left out and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding For if you take the Moral Law for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature then it is no Rule at all of rewarding for it is the promise and not the precept that doth make due the reward And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature it is a very great Dispute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Christ your self deny it pag. 74. I dare not say that if we had perfectly obeyed Everlasting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due And for Remission of sin and the Justification of a sinner and such like they are such mercies as I never heard the Law of nature made the only Rule of our right to them 5. The same I may say of the Rule of punishment The privation of a purchased offered Remission and Salvation is one part of the penalty of the new Law of which the Moral Law can scarce be said the only Rule None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper 6. But the principal thing that I intend is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Unjust For if the accuser say He hath not performed
with men of saith not saving he doth me wrong For in the properest sense i. e. as if God were actually as it were obliged to such in the Covenant of Grace I never said it But how far such are in Covenant or under promise I have by necessary distinction explained before and I think it beseems not a serious Treatise of the Covenants wherein this Question is so largely of purpose handled to have confounded those several considerations and dispute so seriously before the Reader can tell about what The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confess are mine against Dr. Ward and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause §. 40. Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may sitly be applyed in opposition to this Tenent for the like latitude of Baptism §. 40. R. B. THerefore did I say the more of the Covenant before to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptism is the Seal of §. 41. Mr. Bl. ALL the Absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect to men of faith saving and justifying follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism §. 41. R. B. WHat Absurdities follow such a restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labor I searched for it Bear with me therefore while I examine what you refer me to It is pag. 209. where you charge those Absurdities And the first is this 1. This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it All know that a bargain for a summe of money and the payment of that summe the covenant with a servant for labor and the labor according to this covenant are different things Faithful men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entering and observing are not the same and now according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and Regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before Regeneration we make no Covenant after Regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant Reply 1. I have seldom met with a complaint of confusion more unseasonably where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is so visible as to marr all the work so much 2. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerliness I will therefore say but this It is in a very weightie point neer the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe In my Aphorisms I gave my reasons pag. 265 for the contrarie It is a truth so far beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel 1. The conditions are imposed by God and to be performed by us the same act therefore is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the Imposer and Promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions Most properly they are called the conditions or Gods Covenant or Promise rather then of ours for our own Promise is the first part of them and our performance of that Promise but a secondary part For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and Life to the world on condition of their Acceptance this our Divines against the Papists on the Doctrine of merit have fully proved Onely this Acceptance must have these necessary modifications which may constitute it sutable to the quality of the object and state of the receiver It must be a Loving Thankfull Acceptance and it being the Acceptance of a Soveraign and Sanctifier it contains a Resolution to obey him Our Acceptance or Consent is our Covenanting and our faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms Or a Consent that he be ours and we his on his terms And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting or Consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and Life offered 3. Indeed there is herewith joyned a promise for future duty but mark 1. what 2. and to what end 1. It is principally but a promise of the same consent to be continued which we already give and secondarily a promise of sincere obedience 2. It is not that these future promised acts shall be the condition of our first Justification or right to Christ but onely the condition of the continuance of our Justification it being certainly begun and we put into a state of favor and acceptance meerly on our first consent or covenanting that is believing or receiving Christ That all this is no strange thing that our own Covenant Act should be also the Primary condition of Gods Covenant may appear by your forementioned similitudes and all other cases wherein such Relations are contracted If a King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first Right in him and his but for the continuance of that Right is further requisite Primarily the continuance of that consent secondarily the addition of subjection and marriage-faithfulness Yet though consent begun and consent continued be both called consent and are the same thing it is only the beginning that is called marriage so is it only begun faith which is our marriage with Christ and constitutes us Regenerate or converted And therefore you do not well to talk of Regeneration being the keeping of our Covenant If by Regeneration you mean not Gods Act but our repenting and believing then it is our keeping Gods Covenant by performing the condition i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant but it is not the keeping of our own Covenant for our making or entering Covenant is our principal condition on performance whereof we are justified yet in so doing we promise to continue that consent or faith and so the continuance is our Covenant-keeping As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money and doing work had I used such instances what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in â—ustification you should have considered that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay and to labor but to receive 2.
not as a Redeemer by ransom or as one that is to justifie us but not to Sanctifie or Rule us each of these is true in suo genere but false if they pretend to be that which Scripture calls Faith in Christ and which denominateth Believers So is it to believe with the understanding speculatively and superficially and yet to Dissent with the will I think if a man say This is the Son the heir come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man Reign over us that these are not true Believers nor have right to Baptism though their belief that he is the heir be a Dogmatical Faith true in its kinde 2. As Amesius Medulla li. 1. cap. 3. § 20. Quamvis in Scripturis aliquando Assensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Jesu Christi vel per assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam And as words of Knowledge and Assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent so on the contrary words of consent and affection do alwaies imply Knowledge and Assent And therefore Faith is sometime denominated from the Intellectual act Believing and sometime from the Wills act Receiving 3. Do you not know how ordinarily even saving Faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual Act alone when yet you 'l confess the Will is necessarily an Agent in this many texts might quickly be cited to that end Those that Amesius citeth may suffice Joh. 11.25 26 27. He that believeth in me shall live Believest thou this yea Lord I believe that thou art that Christ the Son of God that was to come into the world Such was Nathaniels faith Joh. 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and be in God And 1 Joh. 5.1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God Here is more then Right to Baptism The great doubt was then whether Christ were the true Messiah and therefore this was the greatest and most difficult part of Faith to Assent to this and therefore the whole is denominated from it it being supposed when they believed him to be the only sufficient and faithful Physitian that they were willing to be healed by him in his way 4. If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of Justifying Faith you do not lightly err Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the Regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Math. 13. The word hath not rooting in him Doubtless whether or no the Practical understanding do unavoidably determine the Will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the Will unsanctified which must be said if the Dogmatical Faith that is the Intellectual Assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true Believer Dr. Downam in his Treatise of Justification and against Mr. Pemble hath said enough of this to which I refer you I take that answer as equal to silence which yet Mr. Bl. so highly values as to say It will take away all scruple §. 52. HAving Replyed to your Answer I shall be bold to trouble you with some more Arguments to this point Mr. Blake affirmeth that Justifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptism engageth and therefore not prerequisite to Baptism and that an acknowledgment of the Necessity of such Faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the Seal and so it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptism in which Baptism we must engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter Against this Doctrine I argue 1. From Authority beginning with the lowest Argument The Reverend Assembly in their Advice for Church Government Printed after the Directory pag. 58. of the Church say thus Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Visible Saints viz. of such as being of Age professed faith in Christ and obedience unto Christ according to the Rule of Faith and Life taught by Christ and his Apostles and of their children and they cite Act. 2 â—8 41 last compared with Act. 5.14 1 Cor. 1.2 compared with 2 Cor. 9.13 Now if the Profession of this Saint-ship in Faith and obedience according to the Rule were necessary then the profession of Justifying Faith was necessary For this is justifying Faith without doubt And if so then it is not a Faith short of this which is the condition of Church member-ship for then the profession of that other imperfect Faith might suffice of which more anon See also the Assemblies Confession cap. 28. § 1.6 and the two Catechisms of Baptism where 1. observe the ends of Baptism that it Sealeth Remission Regeneration Adoption c. 2. the subject that none are to be Baptized at age till they profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him Which if they do sincerely no doubt that Faith is no less then justifying See also what that truly Iudicious Learned Reverend Divine Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward viz. against those words which I confuted not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with in Mr. Gatakers Desceptatio de Baptismatis Infantilis vi efficaciâ— pag. 71. where he also cites Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker c. and therefore I will cite no more Mr. Marshal in his late Sermon for Unity I mentioned before A hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose Argu. 2. My Second Argument shall be from the Testimony and Practice of the purest Antiquity 1 Justin Martyr in his second Apologie relating the Churches custom in Baptizing saith As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach and do promise to live according to them they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins our selves also joyning our prayer and fasting Then they are brought to the water and born again in the same way as we our selves were born again So for the other Sacrament he addeth This food we call the Eucharist to which no man is admitted but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sin and that so liveth as Christ hath taught 2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. shews that Abrahams Faith by which he was justified is the same with the Christian Faith yea with that whereby we begin to be saved And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptismal Covenant wherein men deliver up themselves to Christ he saith Si igitur tradideris ei quod
no duty though it be their duty still to get Faith first and then to profess it The minor is proved already in the foregoing arguments and more shall be anon It is no less then justifying Faith that Christs Church hath ever to this day required the Baptized to profess before the application of the water To believe in God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and profess Repentance for all sins and to renounce the world the flesh and Devil c. And when Mr. Bl. maketh profession enough to give Right to baptism I would know whether he mean the profession of Justifying-Faith or not If yea then Justifying Faith is prerequisite or else the profession of it could not If not then the profession of true Christianity is not requisite but of some part of it For as I have shewed it is not the true Christian Faith but some part of it only if it be short of that Faith which is justifying And let men say no more that profession is it that entitles to Baptism without the thing professed when they take even profession it self of true Christianitie to be consequential and not prerequisite Argu. 11. If Baptism be the solemnizing of the mystical marriage between Christ and the baptized then true justifying Faith is of God required thereto but the Antecedent is true therefore Therefore is it said that we are baptized into Christ and into one body And the Church hath ever held the Antecedent to be true The consequence is evident in that no man but the sound believer can truly take Christ as a Husband and Head for so to do is justifying Faith It is Christ himself first in order and then his benefits that are offered in the Sacraments The main business of them is to exhibite Christ himself to be received by a marriage Covenanting The signs are but means and instruments as a twig and turfe and Key in giving possession When the minister in Christs name saith Take Eat c. it is not only bread that he bids men take but first and principally Christ by Faith Joahimus Vadianus Aphorism de Eucharist li. 3. pag. 82. much commendeth a saying of Chrysostoms viz. If thou hadst no body then Christ would have delivered thee all these gifts nakedly or immediately but because thy Soul is conjoyned with a body he hath delivered them in and with these sensible things It is one of the greatest errors that can be committed in the Sacraments to overlook Chirst himself who is offered and to look only either to the signs or to his other gifts We receive him first as our Saviour our Soveraign Redeemer our Head our Husband our Captain and Guide He therefore that comes to these ordinances doth pretend thus to receive Christ and doubtless to receive him thus sincerely is true jusâ—â—â—â—ing saying Faith and therefore it is saving Faith that is called for to the due Receiving of the Sacraments And doubtless God means a sincere and not a seeming dissembled nominal Faith in his command Argu. 12. If there be no such Covenanâ— mentioned in the Scripture specially to be sealed with baptism wherein men engage themselves to perform hereafter their first act of true Repentance and justifying Faith then Mr. Blakes Doctrine is unsound but there is no such Covenant therefore Men are oft in Scripture called to Repent and Believe but nowhere that I know of to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do it sincerely much less is there such a Covenant sealed with Baptism They that affirm such a thing let them prove it if they can Argu. 13. If according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine no true sound Believer or Penitent person can regularly be baptized then his Doctrine is unsound But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved before The Antecedent is proved thus According to his Doctrine saving Faith accepting Christ to Justification is the great condition to which Baptism engageth and is not prerequisite therein Therefore he that already performeth that condition is past such engageing to do it initially hereafter and so hath no use for baptism as to that engagement to the great condition so that if such a person be baptized it must be to other ends then the Ordinance is appointed for and so not Regularly The like may be said of Gods part for to such a Believer God should Seal Remission past or present whereas according to Mr. Bl. the Ordinance is instituted to seal Remission future Argu. 14. If the Doctrine opposed be true then the Gospel preached before baptism was not instituted nor is to be used as a means at least an ordinary means of saving conversion i. e. of producâ—ng saving Faith and Repentance But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent It would be tedious and needless to the Intelligent to heap up Scripture proof of the minor viz. that the Gospel preached before baptism is appointed for an ordinary means of working true conversion We see it was ordinarily done else Preachers could not endeavor it or hope or pray for it The consequence is manifest in that Mr. Bl. makes this true justifying Faith and consequently true Repentance to be not prerequisite to baptism but to be engaged for as to the future performance And therefore regularly it must be only the word after Baptism that must truly Convert or not at all Argu. 15. If Mr. Blakes Doctrine be true then regularly it must be supposed that all persons are in a state of damnation immediately on their baptism and if they then dyed should perish But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent For the Consequence if Mr. Blake mean that it is any space of time after baptism that we engage to begin our justifying Faith in then the consequence is undenyable for till then the person is unjustified But if he mean that in baptism they must engage to believe to Justification in the same instant of time then this is to make such Faith necessary in the instant of baptism and this is but an evident vanity to suppose a man not believing to justification who yet can and must promise to do it in the same instant or the next Argu. 16. If it be only true justifying Faith that gives men right coram Deo by vertue of his Covenant to the Sacrament of the Lords Supâ—â—r and so be prerequisite to that Sacrament and not only to be promised for â—he future then the same may be said of baptism But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved 1. In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the same Covenant 2. It is right to Church-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl. ascribes to his Dogmatical Faith and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the other For the Antecedent I think our brethren that would so fain keep the Church and Ordinances pure would hardly admit a man to the Lords Table that they were sure did not take Christ for his Lord or that would say I
to us it is strictly taken nor had I used the term Condition as to God but as it was necessary to satisfie the Objector who so called it intimating the improprietie of it Also I did plainly shew that the thing called Gods Condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and Repenting Gods is the bestowing of these as the Question expressed or the giving us new and soft hearts that we may do it our selves and do it readily and willingly c. as I expressed pag. 46. because I was not willing to meddle affirmatively or negatively with the question of Gods immediate Physical Efficiencie of our own act yet I doubt not but God doth truly powerfully and effectually to the removing or overcoming all resistance move the Soul to the act it self and therefore it may truly be said that not only Gods own Action but also our action of Believing is the thing promised called his Condition by the Querist and though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Blakes Treatise This much being premised I Reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute Promise as well as a Conditional till you give me better Reasons of your denyal or your Questioning whether Scripture will bear it And I shall yet say that the giving of our Faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise For your Argument to the contrarie hath little in it to compell me to a change Your Maior is Whose acts they are his conditions they are instead of proof you say This is evident I Reply 1. Negatively it had been evident de Actione qua talis that it is no ones Condition but his that performs it as the condition is said to be his that performeth and not his that imposeth it But Affirmatively the proposition holds not universally Nor Negatively speaking de Actione qua est quid donandum To your Minor I could better answer if I could have found it I expected it should have been this But our Faith and Repentance are not Gods acts But I know not whether I may be so bold as say you will own that Before you say This rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours where 1. you cautelously speak the two Propositions copulatively and 2. you put in the word formally which may do much to help you out For the former it is enough according to your own Rule to prove them Gods Conditions and ours if they be Gods Actions and ours for you say Whose actions they are his Conditions they are that is evident It is not therefore necessary that I prove them Gods and not ours 2. It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form If the former action is the form it self it is harder to finde out its matter Accidents have not properly matter and form but the subject is called its matter but Action hath scarce so proper a subject as other Accidents have seeing it is rather Agentis then in agente inhaesivè Of transients it s beyond doubt and I think so of Immanents unles we may with Scotus take them for Qualities If you speak of Moral formality were it sinful Action I should deny God to be the Author but of Faith and Repentance I dare not do so I think God is the Author of them formally as well as materially But in your following words you say But they are our acts c. God believes not c. Reply 1. To believe is our act but to give us Faith or to move us effectually to Believe as a superior Cause this is not our work but Gods 2. Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods 3. There are sufficient reasons why God is not said to Believe though he cause us to believe If you go on the Predeterminants grounds I suppose you know their reasons who take notice of the Armenians making this objection If you enquire of the Jesuits and Arminians that go the way of determined concourse or of partial Causality they think they have yet more to say of which I suppose you not ignorant Durandus his followers think they have most of all to say both why God should be said to believe and why he is not the Author of our sin in that they suppose that he causeth not the act immediately And yet all these acknowledge God to be the cause of our acts But you adventure a step further and say Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods Works Reply 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that God worketh all our works in us those which he worketh are sure his works And that It is God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed. 2. I never met with any orthodox Divine but would yield that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit And the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work 3. If you go the common way of the Predeterminants you must acknowldge that God is the Physical Efficient Predetermining Principal Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtless of our Faith and that both Immediatione Virtutis Suppositi so that it is more properly his act then ours For my part I confess my self of Bishop Davenants minde who saith against Hoard p. 116 As for the predetermination of mens Wills it is a Controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites with whose Metaphysical speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains Or at leâ—t they should not I take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man which way Gods works on the Will in these respects Though if I must encline to any one way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then I finde in Ludov. à Dola who yet hath more then I have seen well answered and lest of all to the Predeterminants for all the numerous arguments of the Dominicans and the seeming strength that Dr. Twisse Heerebâ—ord Rutherford and others of our own do adde to their cause But yet I am far from denying our Faith and Repentance to be Gods Works for I doubt not but he causeth them ut causa Vniversalis by his general Providence as they are natural Actions and also by his special effectual Grace contra omnem Resistentiam infallibly causeth them as they are the special gifts of the Spirit So that I marvail that you should say they are not Gods Works In the conclusion you adde Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the frame into which Grace puts us so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God Reply Both Velle Perficere is the gift of God and not only Posse Velle perficere Why should I trouble the Reader to say any more to that point when Dr. Twisse and others against the Remonstrants have said so much and Austin so much before them all And yet I never
Or do you mean that in the Institution God gives you the materials and you form it your selves If so why blamed you mine which is of mans forming but yet as you suppose the materials so far of God that the conclusion is de fide To give you the materials of a Syllogism is not to give you a Syllogism for the form denominates I must therefore suppose a Believer yet to be upon the frame of one as you speak For I take you to be a Believer and I finde you here at it very seriously 2. I confess though I have no minde to quarrel with your Syllogism that I am never the better for the substitution of this in the room of the humane one I know not the meaning of the first word but I will not stand on that as being I know but a verbal slip I do not apprehend what use there can be for this Syllogism in this business 1. It is supposed that every Christian knows that Christ and Remission are given together and when they know it what use for syllogizing towards the explication of the use of that Seal 2. Nay doth not your arguing intimate that the believer is more assured that Christ is given to him then that pardon is given him Or else if the former were not quid notius how could it be a fit medium you suppose his doubt to be of pardon and salvation and the former brought to prove that whereas I think few doubt of one but they doubt of the other and I think the Sacrament sealeth the gift of Christ as well as of pardon as you confess I see not but you might have laid down as conveniently in this one proposition all that you say is sealed I give thee Christ and Justification and Salvation But this is of small moment §. 64. Mr. Bl. THe major here is not sealed for the Sacraments seal to the truth of no general Propositions but they seal with application to particular persons to whom the Elements are dispensed as Protestant Writers have defended against Papists and put into the difinition of a Sacrament it seals then that which supplies the place of the minor in this tender which is Gods gift of Christ In the Sacrament Christ saith This is my body he saith this is my blood and this is said to all that communicate Now whether this gift of the body and blood of Christ be Absolutely or Conditionally sealed will be easily resolved The outward Elements are given on this condition that we receive them that we eate and drink them We have not Christ Sacramentally till we have taken and eaten and drunk the Elements We have not Christ in the Sacrament before our Souls hâ—ld fâ—â—th that which answers to this eating and drinking That which all do not partake of that receive the Sacrament is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament None can miss of that which God absolutely grants and absolutely sealeth But all do not partake of Christ in the Sacrament therefore he is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament §. 64. R. B. 1. COnfusion maketh Controversies endless and gives advantage to mistakes to prevail with the weak Reader I shall first tell you what I mean by sealing before we further dispute what is sealed and how Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their minde Yet I think it is a Metaphore and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and lay too great stress upon a Metaphorical notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves I am not so well skilled in Law as to be very confident or to pretend to any great exactness in â—hese matters but I conceive that in general a Seal is an Appropriative sign when it is set upon things as Goods Cattels c. it signifies them to be ours when they are applyed to Instruments in writing they have 1. the common end of a Seal 2. a special end 1. The common end is to signifie by a special sign our owning of that writing or Instrument to which it is annexed 2. The special end is according to the nature and use of the Instruments viz. 1. Some Instruments directed to a Communitie or indefinitly to any whom it may concern 2. Some to particular persons or some few Individuals Both of them are 1. either Narratives de re 2. Or obligatory Constitutions or acknowledgments de Debito The former are either 1. Doctrinal and so a man may give it under his hand and seal that he owns such or such a Doctrine or confession of Faith or form prescribed by him as Teacher to his Schollers or Hearers c. 2. Or Historical and so a man may give it under his hand and Seal that such a person is thus or thus qualified or did this or that act or suffered losses pain c. 2. The Constitutions de Debito are 1. De Debito officii the Constitution of Dutie 1. By equals upon voluntary obligation by contract which concerneth not our business 2. By Superiors to their Subjects or Inferiors which is either a Law to any or to some Communitie Or else a Precept to some particulars And so Soveraigns may give out Laws and Proclamations under their hand and Seal and Justices and Inferior Magistrates may seal their Precepts and Warrants and Orders c. 2. Or they are de Debito Beneficii Constituted 1. by a Legislator or Rector as such 2. by a Proprietary or Owner or Lord as such 1. The former is either Absolute as the Collation of some honors may be and some acts of pardon and the Divisions of Inheritances as among the Israelites at their first possessing Canaan Or they are Conditional And the Condition is either pure Acceptance which is so naturally requisite that it is usually supposed and not expressed and such Collations go commonly under the name of Absolute and Pure Donations though indeed they are not Or else some requite service or moral action which may properly make the Benefit to be Praemium a Reward All these being sealed the Seal doth oblige the Benefactor or Donor because the Instrument is obligatory if it be for future conveyance If a present Collation then the Seal doth confirm the Receivers Right against any that may hereafter question it The like may be said of Acknowledgments as of Constitutions The Subject may acknowledge his subjection and Seal it the Stipulator may cause the Promisor to acknowledge Duty or Debt and to Seal it So for Acknowledgments of Debts discharged Rewards received Conditions performed c. 3. The like may be said de Debito Panae when Penal Laws are sealed and of Commissions and Warrants for execution but this less concerns our case So that the use of a Seal as such is but to testifie in a special manner that
are a sincere Believer then you have that All sincere Believers are Justified I have not for my part But it seems by your following words that you have or suppose others to have to which I say 3. If you have as evidently concluded that Faith is in your heart saving Faith as that Reason is in your Soul 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 delibiore But if this be not your case it is most fit for all the mixt interest of the Premises to say that it is not de fide but from the knowledge of your sincerity in the Faith as a parte debiliore And if it be your case indeed you are the happiest man that ever I yet spake with But I know that no man ordinarily can have such evidence of his sincerity yet because I will not speak of you or others by my self nor judge others hearts to be as bad as my own or as all those that I have conversed with we will if you please thus comprimize the difference All those whose evidence of sinceritie is as cleer as the evidence of their Reason and manhood yea or more then Scripture evidence so that Gods Testimony is pars debilior in the Syllogism these shall take the Conclusion that they are Justified to be de fide and all the rest shall take the Conclusion to be not de fide but from the knowledge of themselves and then let the issue shew whether more will be of your mind or of mine I think this a fair Agreement §. 70. Mr. Bl. OTherwise saith he every man rightly Receiving the Seals must needs certainly be Justified and saved I see no danger in yielding this Conclusion every man rightly receiving and improving the seals must be saved and Justified He that rightly receives the seals receives Christ in the seals and receiving Christ he receives salvation So he that rightly hears Hear and your Souls shall live Isa 55. So he that rightly prayes Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved Rom. 10. §. 70. R. B. 1. BY Rightly I meant having Right to it and that only in foro Ecclesiae and not Rectè But I confess I should have plainlyer exprest my meaning 2. â—hether you here contradict not your Doctrine of Baptismal Faith where you suppose Justifying Faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptism and therefore not prerequisite in it I leave you to judge and resolve as by your explication §. 71. Mr. Bl. ANd no man can groundedly administer the Sacrament to any but himself because he can be certain of no mans Justification and Salvation Vpon the same terms that he knows any man may be saved upon the same he may give him the Sacrament sealing this salvation This argument as we heard before is Bellarmines and concludes indeed against Absolute seals in the Sacrament but not against Conditional sealing as is confessed by Protestant Divines §. 71. R. B. 1. I know it not to be true of any man that he shall be saved therefore I may not seal it to any by your Concession God-Seals to no falshood I know not whether it be true or false that A. B. shall be saved Yet it is on some of the Opposers principles that I now argue 2. I desire you not to answer it as Bellarmines argument but as mine seeing you choose me to deal with 3. The Argument makes as much against my asserting the Truth of your Conclusion as the sealing it so that let your sealing be Conditional or none at all I may not so much as affirm to any man whose heart I know not the Conclusion which you say I must seal The Conclusion is Absolute Thou A. B. art Justified and shalt be saved though the Major Proposition or or Universal Grant be conditional Now if you will Seal this Absolute Conclusion conditionally then 1. you will sin in the bare affirming it a true Conclusion before you seal it if you go but so fat 2. What is the Condition that you mean I suppose true Faith But if so then where there is not true Faith thete you do not Actually seal For a Conditional sealing is not Actual sealing till the condition be performed for the condition not performed suspends the act And then you have mistaken in thinking that the Covenant is sealed actually to the unregenerate or ungodly But if you mean any thing short of true Faith how can you on that condition seal to any man that he is Justified and shall be saved I do therefore rather choose to say If thou Believe thou shalt be saved and thus as contained in the general Grant I absolutely seal then to say Thou shalt be saved and this I seal if thou Believe Though I say again I make a small matter of this and suppose your meaning and mine is the same for all these words 4. Where you say It concludes an Absolute sealing I say No if it be but to a Conditional Grant and if Absolute Exhibition or Collation be not added to absolute sealing §. 72. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter adds I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here as one error draws on many and leadeth a man into a Labyrinth of Absurdities being first mistaken in the nature of Justifying Faith thinking it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins which is the Conclusion have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth And when the Papists alledge that it is nowhere 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 But Mr. Baxteâ— doubtless knows that many Divines who are out of that error concerning the nature of Justifying Faith and have learned to distinguish between Faith in the Essence of it and Assurance yet are confidently perswaded that the Sacrament seals this Conclusion knowing that the Sacrament sealeth what the Covenant promiseth to the persons in Covenant and upon the same terms as the Covenant doth promise it Now the Covenant promiseth forgiveness of sins as Mr. Baxter confesses conditionally and this to all in Covenant and this the Sacrament sealeth §. 72. R. B. 1. IF there be any that mistake but in one of those points when others mistake in them all those are not the men meant that I speak of I intended not every man that held your opinion but only those that held it on the ground and with the worser consequent or defence which I expressed 2. I shall know whom you mean when I see the Authors and place in them cited 3. I think most of our great transmarine Divines who write of it against the Papists do own that which you acknowledge an error and what advantage that will give the Papists who are so ready to take a Confutation of one
Doctrine of the Protestants for a Confutation of all you may easily conjecture 4. This Conclusion many confess sealed If thou A. B. do believe thou shalt be saved but not this Conclusion Thou A. B shalt be saved 5. I have shewed you that it is one thing to seal to the Promise for form and matter and another thing to seal to the persons Right to the thing promised This actual Right is but the end which is not obtained till Delivered or offered Reception and actual Collation go before and then is not the subjectum obsignatum Your argument I conceive doth nothing for your cause yea is wholly for mine Your Conclusion is therefore this the Sacrament sealeth what is this why Forgiveness of sins Conditionally and this to all in Covenant Here 1. you seem to yield that it is not the Absolute but Conditional Promise which is sealed which is the main thing that I stood on 2. You seem to apply the word Conditionally to forgiveness and n◠to sealing and so to confess that the sealing is actual and if actual then not meerly conditional For to say I conditionally seal is to say It shall be no seal till the performance of the Condition But you seem to confess it a seal before of Conditional forgiveness 3. You seem to acknowledge the general Promise sealed though with application to particular persons §. 73. Mr. Bl. ANd as it is an error to hold that to believe my sins 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 only 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 §. 73. R. B. 1. IF assurance be not of the nature or Essence of Faith then it is not Faith for nothing is Faith but what is of the nature and Essence of Faith But according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not of the nature or Essence of Faith for he saith it s an error to hold it therefore according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not Faith But I suspect by the following words that by nature and essence he means the minimum quod sic 2. That which is but either Pursued or Possessed by Faith is not Faith it self for nothing is the Pursuer and Pursued the Possessor and Possessed as to the same part nor will Mr. Bl. I conjecture say that a less degree of Faith possesseth a greater but according to Mr. Bl. assurance is but pursued or possessed by Faith therefore is not Faith 3. I know none that denyeth Assurance to be a Work of Faith which Mr. Bl. here saith is a mistake to say Love and Obedience are wroks of Faith but not Faith it self 4. I must have better proof before I can believe that it is Assurance of our own sinceritie or actual Justification which the Apostle calls The full assurance of Faith Heb. 10.22 Though how far this may concurr I now enquire not 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sinceritie in the description of Faith Heb. 11.1 Unless you mean that hope is part of Faith and assurance the same with hope both which need more proof Hope may be without assurance and when it is joyned with it yet it is not the same thing Only such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of Hope 6. It s true that Faith may be said as you speak to Realize salvation to the Soul that is when the Soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a Glory and Salvation to be expected and enjoyed by Believers as Christ hath promised here Faith apprehendeth it as Real or Certain and so resolves the doubt But when the doubt is only whether I be a true Believer Faith resolves it not and when the doubt is whether this certain Glory and Salvation shall be mine Faith only cooperateth to the resolve of it by affording us one of the Propositions but not both and not wholly the Conclusion 7. I am of Dr. Ames minde that it is one of Faiths most eminent acts by which it is there described But so think not they that tell us that is none of the Instrumental Justifying act which is there described 8. This which you took to be a good answer is that great mistake which hath so hardned the Papists against us and were it not for this point I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest about Conditional sealing as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer when you confine it to those only that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they Believe i. e. savingly I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by Assured grounds c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative 10. Demonstrations 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 partie discerns it to be an infallible Demonstration which sure intimates a very high kinde of certainty 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 acknowledge 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 sinceritie then of the Truth of the Promise §. 74. Mr. Bl. BVt this is said to be a gross mistake and thus proved as though the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the Conclusion But here being in our Syllogism both a Major and a Minor there is added further or as if the Conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda a proper object of Faith when but one of the Propositions is of Faith the other of sense and knowledge Here the Major is confest to be of Faith but the Minor I sincerely Believe is affirmed to be known by inward sense and self-reflexion Here I must enter my dissent that a Conclusion may be Credenda an object of Faith when but one of the Propositions is of Faith and
But such is the Doctrine of Faith therefore I know some Divines to the no small wrong of the Christian Faith say None can really believe it but the Regenerate But the Jews believe the supernatural Revelations of the Old Testament and the Divels and many a thousand wicked men believe both old and new experience tells us so Christ tells us so that many believe who fall away in persecution James tells such men that they do well in believing but the Divel doth so too else men could not reject or persecute the known Truth To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits infunduntur ad mâ—dum acquisitorum and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary yet that makes not other causes unnecessary Rada who concludes that Theologia nostra non est evidens gives but these two poor reasons and I should as soon look for strong ones from him as almost any man of his Religion or party 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia sed Condita therefore nec Conclusiones c. I deny the Antecedent which he proves nor Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei and that is evident so is the Revelation as is said 2. He saith Si conclusiones nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes possemus convincere Infideles ut fidem nostram susciperent quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum I answer 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction as a Will to understand and divers other things which the wicked want As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects but for want of good eyes that a blinde man seeth not so it is here 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion yea the Divels themselves believe And whereas he adds Pauls words 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith not by sight it speaks not of Rational Evidence but of sensitive and that we confess is wanting Faith is the Evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 Were it not for digressing too far I would examine the 9. Quest Mater 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate and shew how ill he answers the nine Arguments which he undertakes to answer and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis And I should shew that Faith is a kinde of Science or if we will distinguish it from Science it must not be so widely as is usual nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup will without any help see the weakness of his answers and how he seemed to stagger himself Yet let me add this caution or two 1. I do not mean that every man who hath true Faith doth discern the great and chiefest Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine of Faith 2. Where there is the same Evidence in the thing there may be such different apprehensions of it through the diversity of Intellectual capacities and preparations as that one may have a firme Belief and certain and another but a probable opinion and another none at all 3. Though I take the Evidence of the Doctrine of Faith to be as full as I have mentioned yet not so obvious and easily discerned as sensitive evidence and therefore as one cause there are fewer believe 4. Also the distance of the objects of Faith makes them work less on the affections and the presence and other advantages of sensual Objects for a facile moving the Spirits makes them carrie men away so potently by making greater Commotions in the passions so that no wonder if sense do prevail with most I confess also that men have need of good acquaintance with Antiquity and other History and the Seal of the Church in most parts of the world to see the strong Evidence that there is of the Infallible Tradition of the Scriptures down to us and to some obscure men this may be inevident as it may be to one brought up in a secret Cloister whether ever we had a King or Parliament or Laws in England But the thing is not therefore inevident to the industrious No though it depend on that verity of Report which as proceeding from each particular person is contingent seeing there is Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Circumstances of these Contingent reports And as Rada when he concludes boldly that Cognitio Dei respectu Contingentium non est proprie scientia c. yet seems to grant that God may scire Contingentia uâ— necessaria si non ut Contingentia so it may be said in our present Case the same Reports which are Contingent are yet in other respects of Evident Verity and so we know them But I finde I have been drawn beyond my intent to digress far on this point but it is because it tends to clear the main point in question To return therefore to Mr. Blake I do not know the meaning of his next words where he saith that This Argument Well followed would put me to a great loss in some of my Arguments for Scripture c. Doth he think that I argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures from themselves alone as the Testifier thereof to our Faith or that I take it to be meerly or primarily de fide that Scripture is Gods Revelation when I have professedly published the contrary before those Arguments where I have also added these words of Mr. Rich. Hooker wherewith I will conclude this Section Truly it is not a thing impossible nor greatly hard even by such kinde of proofs so to manifest and clear that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principles such as all men acknowledge to be true Again Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation but it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred Again These things we believe knowing by Reason that Scripture is the Word of God Again It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield it any other Assent then such as doth answer the Evidence Again How bold and confident soever we may be in words when it comes to the tryal such as the Evidence is which the Truth hath such is the Assent nor can it be stronger if grounded as it should be so far Mr. Hooker cited once more Eccles pol. p. 102 103 c. §. 76. Mr. Bl. TO winde up all though there be some difference in the way between me and my learned friend yet there is little in the thing it self Mr. Baxter saies that the Proposition to which God sealeth runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee The soul must assume the Minor But
unsavory words that I have let fall And I must desire you not to suppose that I judge of all the rest of your Book as I do oâ— this which I have here Replyed to I value the Wheat while I help you to weed out the Tares Pardon my confident Concluding you in the error and my self in the Truth whether it be from the convincing self-revealing nature of Light or from the common unhappy fate of the deluded I must leave you and others to judge by the Evidence that is in my arguments whatever further evidence I may have my self within doubtless the various state of Intellects doth cause a strange variety of apprehensions of those objects which are in themselves the same And words be but defective signs There is something in Sensation and Intellection which words cannot fully shâ—w to another It is but the Species and not the thing it self which you see in this Glass My most exquisite description of my own Tast and the sweetness of what I tast will not cause another to tast that sweetness And there is somewhat like this in Intellection it self for though I confess my self ignorant what manner of thing our Intellection will be when we are out of the flesh yet now me thinks I perceive that it doth in some sort participate of sense and that vid August de Trinit li. 5. c. 1. initio Senâ—io me Intelligere is a speech not wholly void of Truth I confess also that I should have little modesty or humility if I should not think more highly of the understanding of your self and so many Reverend and Learned Brethren who dissent from me in several points here debated then of mine own But yet we must prove all things and not so trust to other mens eyes as to shut our own or refuse to give credit to our sight They may far excell me in many other things though they mistake in this I remember Pauls If we or an Angel from heaven c. And I remember Tertullians Non ex personis probamus fidem sed ex fide personas li. Prescript adv haer c. 3. And Irenaeus his Presbyteris adhaerere oportet qui Apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyterit Ordine sermonem â—anum custodiunt c. li. 4. c. 44. And Cyprians Quae ista obstinatio est quae praesumptio humanam traditionem Divinae dispositioni anteponere nec animadvertâ—re indignari irasci Deum quoties Divina praecepta solvit praeterit humana traditio Epist 74. ad subaâ—an p. 229. And many a one of Austins yet plainer then these to the same purpose are commonly known Paul himself could do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth as having no Authority given him to destruction but to Edification I am willing to stoop to the judgment of my betters as far as is Reasonable Conscionable and Possible and if no further I hope I may be excused when I see plain Reason against them it is unreasonable to subscribe to the opinions of the most learned when Scripture is against them it were dishonest and unconscionable And when they are one against another to assent to all is impossible In such a case I must needs bear the Accusations of one party who think me Arrogant Proud and Self conceâ—â—ed as supposing my self to be wiser then they But I have long been studying and Preaching and I think practising that necessary and excellent Duty of being so contented with Gods sole approbation as those that know they stand or fall at his bar and therefore must esteem it a very small thing to be judged by man I have long valued and believed that saying of Austin commonly cited and found lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 6. the very last words Contra Rationem nemo sobrius Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus In the point of Faiths Instrumentality and the nature of the justifying act which I differ from you in I am constrained upon all these three grounds to my dissent 1. Lest by renouncing my Reason I should cease to be sober Though yet I think sober men may be contrary minded not seeing these Reasons 2. Lâ—st by forsaking the Scripture I should cease to be a Christian Though Christians that observe nor or understand not that the Scripture is against you in this may judge as you 3. Lest by contradicting the Church I should cease to be peaceable â—o Though men otherwise peaceable may be drawn to it through prejudice If you will bring one sound Reason one word of Scripture or one approved writer of the Church yea or one Heretick or any man whatsoever for many hundred years after Christ I think I may say 1300 at lest to prove that Christ as Lord or King is not the object of the Justifying act of Faith or that Faith Justifieth properly as an Instrument I am concented so far to lose the Reputation of my Reason Understanding Reading and Memory For though I have not read all that hath been written for so many hundred years yet I have read most of the Writers of great note except the most Voluminous which 〈◊〉 but part of and by that much I see so far into the sense and language of those times that I dare stand to the hazard of this adventure I speak this because you tell me that there was scarce a dissenting voice among our Divines that are against me about the Instrumentality of Faith And if there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200 or 1400 years after Christ I pray you tell me whom a humble modest peaceable man should follow were he never so much ready to deny his own understanding Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 years therefore I am suspected as singular and as a Novilist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious Novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the Interest of mans Obedience in his Justification as continued and consummate in Judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athonagoâ—as Tatianus Clem. Alexand. Minutius Fâ—elix Arnoâ—â—us Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alexandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any Councel were of your minde in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at lest my supine negligence in reading or my very faulty memory in retaining their words And for Austin Chrysost and others of whom I have read but the lesser part I do strongly conjecture by that part at their sense and that they concurr with the rest If you say that the Fathers had their errors and all this is but humane Judgement and all men are fallible I confess all this to be true But as I still say that Contra. Ecclesiam nemo pacificus so I desire
her first Interest in him and then in all that he hath It is not accepting this house and that Land and that Servant c. that gives her a distinct right in them There is not a marrying to all these and a particular Acceptance of every of his Goods and Chattel requisite to a right in them though there be to a use of them 2. And the Opinion being utterly unproved is sufficiently confuted In what Book that ever was written have these nice distinguishers proved their Doctrine by Scripture or sound reason Lex non distinguit ergo c. 3. And it discovers its own absurdity For if this be true then to apprehend Christs death is the only act that gives right to that and to apprehend his obedience to that and to apprehend Adoption is the only act that gives right to that and so of all other benefits So that there should be one act of Faith giving right to Christ himself and another giving right to pardon another to sentential Justification another to Adoption another to the Spirit and Sanctification another to Perseverance another to Glory Yea one to every particular gift or part of Sanctification and one to the pardon of every particular known sin that is pardoned One to the Gospel written another to the Ministry one to health another to life and one to every blessing And so that act of faith which Receives Adoption should not Justifie nor that which Receives Christ himself neither directly but only that which receiveth Justification Whereas it is one Reception or Act of faith morally taken Apprehending the entire object that God hath made the Condition of his Promise So that to apprehend Christ as the Donor of Glory doth as much towards our Justification as apprehending him as Justifier And to Believe in him as our Sanctifier and King doth as Really conduce to our Justification and as much as the apprehending him as one that will pardon our sins He that believeth shall be saved is the simple Scripture doctrine 4. And if all this were not so yet it is the apprehending of Christ as King according to them then that must be the Pardoning and Justifying act more then as a Sacrifice For as Satisfier and a Ransome he only meriteth our Pardon and Justification But to pardon by Grant is unquestionably an act of Soveraignty as such It being not the pardon of a private injury but a publick Crime that we have to speak of And to Justifie by Plea is Christs act as an Advocate and not as a Sacrifice And to Justifie by sentence is Christs act as Judge So that if their own Doctrine did hold of the diversifying of our Right by the diversity of the formal reason of the object apprehended then would it but infallibly prove against them that it is the Receiving of Christ as King and Judge that is the Act of Pardoning and Justifying faith more then the Receiving him as a Sacrifice or Ransome FINIS * * Seneca Epist ad Luc. 102. Non debuit hoc nobis esse propositum argutias serere Philosophiam in â—as angustias ex sua Majestate detraâ—ere Quanto sâ—tius est ire aperta via recta quam sibi ipsi flexus disponere quos cum magna molestia debeas relegere Neque enim quicquam aliud istae Disputationes sunt quam inter se peritè captantium lusus * * Yet if you be able to believe him he tels his Readeâ— he is sure there is no Pepper sprinkled throughout his Discourse nor is he Couscious to himself of the least bitterness c. * * Indeed I more desired in Mr. K. a conscience so tender as would have strained at some of all those palpable untruths in matter of fact then a milder language to my self But he tels us in his Epistle that Aliquando innocentius delinquendum erat ne deessent in quibus condonandis c. Et quidni mihig ratuler faelicia quadam erratula c. Whether he think also that he should innocentius delinquere faeliciter errare that there may be matter for the honour of Gods Grace as well as mans I cannot tell Whether faith be the Instrument of Justification * * I suppose the word Act is used so largely as to include the Law it self Of the instrumentality of the Covenant Whether justifying faith be prerequisite to Baptism Rivet in Animad in Annotat. Grotli in Cassandr in art 4. p. 13. fol. Fides quae non parit obedientiae propositum non est vera fides Haec cum primum ingeneratur cum poenitentia conjuncta est quae non potest esse sine obedientiae proposito Fidei formatae insormis apud Veteres Catholicos ne Vestigium quidem reperitur si de fide Justificante salvifica c.
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 Soveraignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its 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 §. 1. R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes that I resolve to begin with it I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions and not de Substantia rei But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importance of your expressions may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on And that not per accidens but from its proper nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against and I am glad to find you so little in love with it as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered For now I rest assured that you will not be offended when here or hereafter I shall open your guiltiness of it and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise before I can give a clear answer to your words 1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant called by most Justificatio Juris and Justification per sententiam Judicis 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun and as continued or consummate 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation 4. Between these two questions What justifieth ex parte Christi and What justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non cum quâ 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification and his actual justifying him by constitution or sentence Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in these Propositions which some of them shall speak further then the present Point in Question for a preparation to what followeth Prop. 1. Christ did Merit our Justification or a power to justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant Prop. 2. Christ dotn justifie Constitutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e. quoad valorem rei he conferreth it ut Dominus gratis benefaciens but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi ut Rector Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the new Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remission and constitute us Righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Satisfier but joyntly ut Benefactor Rector Prop. 3. Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Prop. 4. Sentential Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification that in Law being quoad sententiam but virtual Justification though quoad constitutionem debiti relationis it be actual Justification Prop. 5. Faith justifieth not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say To justifie is not to make such a real change Though some joy◠with the Papists in this and tell me that as the Divine Attributes make their several moral Impressions on the soul according to their several natures so do the satisfaction and merits of Christ apprehended procure comfort and joy and a justifying sentence to be pronounced in the soul it self and so the apprehension of Christs Soverainty causeth our subjection which last is true Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Physical Causation or Efficiency in justifying seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare in whole or in part but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis sed conditionaliter collatum It is a Relative change that is made by Justification and not a Real or Physical Prop. 7. The Legal formal interest or conducibility of Faith to our Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition in the proper Law-sense as the word Condition is used viz. that species of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Potestativae and not Casuales vel Mixtae Prop. 8. Scripture doth not say that I can finde that Faith justifieth but that we are justified by Faith I therefore use the later phrase rather then the former both because it is safest to speak with the Scripture and because the former speech seemeth to import an Efficiency but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition Yet I will not quarrell with any that speaks otherwise nor refuse to speak in their phrase while I dispute with them as long as I first tell them my meaning Prop. 9. Though ex parte Christi our several changes proceed from his several Benefits and parts of his Office exercised for us yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his several Benefits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object Christ meriteth Remission for us as Satisfier of Justice and he actually justifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge and he teacheth us as Prophet and ruleth us as King The real mutations here on us receive their diversification partly from our faith because there faith doth efficere or causare As we learn of Christ because we Beleeve him or Take him for our Teacher We obey him because we Take him for our King c. But it is not so with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Christ and his Benefits Faith doth not obtain Right to Remission and Justification distinctly as it receiveth his Righteousness or himself as Priest and so Right to the Priviledges of Christs Government distinctly as it taketh him as King nor Right to Adoption as it taketh him as a Father nor Right to Glory as it taketh him as Glorifier no more then all inferiour benefits as Title to Magistracy Ministry Health House Lands c. proceed and are diversified by the divers aspects of our faith on Christ The true Reason of which is this
produce to teach the world that the only justifying act of faith is The Accepting of Justification as merited by Christs blood or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of I can finde no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition then this very doctrine which they have generally received though not in such exact terms aâ— it is taught them I never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinned their worst they still think to be saved because they believe And what is their beleeving why they beleeve that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation to Christs death and Gods mercy This were good if this were not all but if Christ were also received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher But if this were the only justifying act as they usually speak then I should not know how to disprove him that should tell me that all men in the world shall be saved that beleeve the Gospel to be true or at least the far greatest part of the most wicked men For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned and therefore Accept or are Willing of Christ to save them from damnation and I am sure they are Willing to be pardoned as fast as they sin and that is to be justified and therefore must needs be Willing of Christ to pardon them supposing that they beleeve the Gospel to be true What therefore shall I say if a wicked wretch thus argue He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I for I Accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore c Shall I tell him that he dissembleth and is not Willing Why 1. Long may I so tell him before he will beleeve me when he feels that I speak falsly and slander him 2. And I should know that I slander him my self Supposing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Christs blood as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell Shall I give him the common answer the best that ever was given to me that though the only justifying act be the receiving Christ or his Righteousness to justifie us yet this must be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign and a resolution to obey him Perhaps I may so puzzle him for want of Logick or Reason but else how easily may he tell me that this receiving Christ as Lord hath either the nature of a medium ad finem or not If it be no medium the want of it in this case cannot hinder the Justification of that man that is sure he hath the sole justifying act it self For as meer signs or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect so the want of them hinders not the effect where all causes and means are present But if I say that this act of faith is a means to Justification then I must either make it a Cause or a Condition or invent some new medium not yet known But you say Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Ans 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in stead of the Soveraign I say not that the reception of Christs Soveraignty doth â—ustifie those words may have an ill sense but we are justified by receiving Christ as our Soveraign which much differs from the former 2. Christ as Soveraign doth cleanse us both from the guilt and power of sinne by actual Remission or Justification and by Sanctification 3. Suppose you speak true as you do if you mean it only of Meriting our cleansing What is this to our Question But you adde Faith in his blood not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth justifie us Ans This is something to the purpose if it had been proved But will a nude and crude Assertion change mens judgements or should you have expected it A text you cite and therefore it might seem that you thought it some proof of this Rom. 3.24 But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition which who will take for good Exposition The text faith He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood And you adde Not through faith in his Command 1. Sed quo jure nescio Your exclusion is either upon supposition that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only or else it is on some mysterious ground which you should the rather have revealed because it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to discover it without your revelation If the former 1. By what authority do you adde only in your interpretation 2. Will you exclude also his Obedience Resurrection Intercession c When by the obedience of one many are made righteous and Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his Command but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher or either Receiving Christ as Ruler goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands And for the text Rom. 3.24 It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connotâ— both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what ex parte nostri but the former pâ—incipally I will explain my thoughts by a similitude or two Suppose a Rebell be Condemned and lye in prison waiting for Execution and the Kings Son being to raise an Army buyeth this Rebell with all his fellow prisoners from the hand of Justice and sendeth to them this message If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours and take me hereafter for your Prince or General and list your selves under me I will pardon you or give you the pardon which I have purchased and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army Here now if the Question be What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the prisoner It is his ransom as to the Impetration or Preparation and it is his free-Grant which doth it as to the actual Deliverance If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him But if you ask on the offenders part What it is that delivereth him as the condition It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ransomer that is the sole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death Nor is it the Accepting of the