to learn of Christ as a Master or to be ruled by him yet cannot be justified or saved by him Proposition 10. I easily grant that Faith qud Christum Prophetam et Dominum recipit doth not justifie but only fides quâ Christum Prophetam Dominum recipit quâ est promissionis Conditio praestita But then I say the same also of Faith in Christ as Priest or in his Righteousness Having explained my meaning in these ten Propositions for preventing of Objections that concern not the Controversie but run upon mistakes I shall now proceed to prove the Thesis which is this Thesis We are justified by God by our Believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord and not only by Believing in his blood or Righteousness Argument 1. My first Argument shall be from the Concession of those that we dispute with They commonly grant us the point contended for Therefore we may take it for granted by them If you say What need you then dispute the point if they deny it not whom you dispute with I Answer some of them grant it and understand not that they grant it us because they understand not the sense of our Assertion And some of them understand that they grant it in our sense but yet deny it in another sense of their own and so make it a strife about a syllable But I shall prove the Concession left some yet discern it not If it be granted us that Believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Teacher is a real part of the Condition of our Justification then is it granted us that by this believing in him we are justified as by a Condition which is our sense and all that we assert But the former is true Therefore so is the later For the proof of the Antecedent which is all First Try whether you can meet with any Divine that dare deny it who believeth that Faith is the Condition of the Covenant Secondly And I am sure their writings do ordinarily confess it Their Doctrine that oppose us is That Faith is both a Condition and an Instrument but other Acts as Repentance c. may be Conditions but not Instruments And those that have waded so far into this Controversie seem to joyne these other Acts of Faith with the Conditions but not with the Instrument Thirdly They expresly make it antecedent to our Justification as of moral necessity ex constitutione permittentis and say it is the Fides quae justificat which is the thing desired if there be any sense in the words Fourthly They cannot deny to Faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher that which they commonly give to Repentance and most of them to many other Acts. But to be a Condition or part of the Condition of Justification is commonly by them ascribed to Repentance therefore they cannot deny it to these acts of faith So that you see I may fairly here break off and take the Thesis pro Concessa as to the sense Nothing more can be said by them but against our phrase whether it be proper to say that we are justified By that which is but a bare Condition of our Justification which if any will deny First We shall prove it by the consent of the world that apply the word By to any Medium And Dr. Twiss that told them contr Corvinum over and over that a condition is a Medium though it be not a cause and I think none will deny it Secondly by the consent of many Texts of Scripture But this must be referred to another Disputation to which it doth belong viz. about the Instrumentality of faith in justifying us which God willing I intend also to perform Argument 2. The usual language of the Scripture is that we are justified by faith in Christ or by believing in him without any exclusions of any essential part of that faith But faith in Christ doth essentially contain our believing in him as Teacher Priest and King or Lord therefore by believing in him as Teacher Priest and Lord we are justified The Major is past the denial of Christians as to the first part of it And for the second part the whole cause lyeth on it For the Minor also is past all controversie For if it be essential to Christ as Christ to be God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord then it is essential to faith in Christ by which we are justified to believe in him as God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord. But the Antecedent is most certain therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is because the act here is specified from its Object All this is past further question All the Question therefore is Whether Scripture do any where expound it self by excluding the other essential parts of faith from being those acts by which we are justified and have limited our justification to any one act This lyeth on the Affirmers to prove So that you must note that it is enough for me to prove that we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus for this Includeth all the essential acts till they shall prove on the contrary that it is but secundum quid and that God hath excluded all other essential acts of faith save that which they assert The proof therefore is on their part and not on mine And I shall try anon how well they prove it In the mean time let us see what way the Scripture goeth and observe that every Text by way of Authority doth afford us a several Argument unless they prove the exclusion First Mark 16.15 16 17. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and these signs shall follow them that believe c. Here the faith mentioned is the believing of the Gospel and the same with our becoming Christians and therefore not confined to one part or act of saving saith That Gospel which must be preached to all the world is it that is received by the faith here mentioned But that Gospel doth essentially contain more then the doctrine of Christs Priesthood therefore so doth that faith Object It is not Justification but Salvation that is there promised Answ It is that Salvation whereof Justification is a part It is such a Salvation as all have right to as soon as ever they believe and are baptized which comprehendeth Justification And the Scripture here and everywhere doth make the same faith without the least distinction to be the condition of Justification and of our Title to Glorification and never parcels out the several effects to several acts of faith except only in those Qualities or Acts of the soul which faith is to produce as an efficient cause To be justified by faith or Grace and to be saved by faith or Grace are promiscuously spoken as of the same faith or Grace Secondly John 3.15 16 18. He that believeth in him
him is the means of Receiving all 1 John 5.11 12. God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his son He that hath the son hath life and he that hath not the son hath not life So that accepting Christ as Christ makes him ours by way of condition and then our life of Justification and sanctification is in him and comes with him Coming to Christ as Christ is the sole undivided condition of Life John 5 40. Ye will not come to me that ye may have Life Yet here I must crave that Ingenuous dealing of the Reader that he will observe once for all and not expect that I should on every call recite it that though I maintain the unity of the condition not only in opposition to a separating division but also to a distributive division of Conditions yet I still maintain these three things First that quoad materiale Conditionis that faith which is the condition doth believe all the essential parts of Christ office distinctly and so it doth not look to his Exaltation in stead of his Humiliation nor è Contra but looks to be Ransomed by him as a sacrifice and meritoriously justified by his Merits and actually justified by him as King Judge and Bnefactor c. And that it eyeth also distinctly those Benefits which salvation doth essentially consist in at least And it takes Christ finally to Justifie Adopt Sanctifie Glorifie c. distinctly But still it s but one condition on which we have Title to all this Secondly That I maintain that in the Real work of sanctification the several acts of faith on several objects are distinct efficient causes of the acting of several Graces in the soul The Belief of every attribute of God and every Scripture truth hath a several real effect upon us But it is not so in Justification nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation for there our faith is not a true efficient cause but a Condition and faith as a condition is but One though the efficient acts are divers The Belief of several Texts of Scripture may have as many sanctifying effects on the soul But those are not several conditions of our Title thereto God saith not I will excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text. In the exercise of Grace God worketh by our selves as efficient causes but in the Justifying of a sinner God doth it wholly and immediately himself without any Co-efficiency of our own though we must have the disposition or Condition Thirdly I still affirm that this One undivided condition may have divers appellations from the Respect to the Consequent benefits for I will not call them the effects This one faith may be denominated importing only the Interest of a condition a justifying faith a sanctifying faith an Adopting faith a saving faith preserving faith c. But this is only if not by extrinsick denomination at the most but a Virtual or Relative distinction As the same Center may have divers denominations from the several lines that meet in it Or the same Pillar or Rock may be East West North or South ad laevam vel ad dextram in respect to several other Correlates Or plainly as one and the same Antecedent hath divers denominations from several Consequents So if you could give me health wealth Honor Comfort c. on the condition that I would but say One Word I thank you that one word might be denominated an enriching word an honouring word a comforting word from the several Consequents And so may faith But this makes neither the Materiale nor the Formale of the Condition to be divers either the faith it self or condition of the Promise Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general and of Gods imposed Condition in specicial enough to perswade us that the benefit dependeth usually as much or more on some other act as on that which accepteth the benefit it self then we have reason to judge that our Justification dependeth as much on some other act as on the acceptance of Justification but the Antecedent is true as I prove First As to Covenant Condition in general it is most usual to make the promise consist of somwhat which the party is willing of and the condition to consist of somewhat which the Promiser will have but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to And therefore it is that the Accepting of the benefit promised is seldome if ever expresly made the Condition though implicitly it be part because it is supposed that the party is willing of it But that is made the express condition where the party is most unwilling So when a Rebel hath a pardon granted on condition he come in and lay down arms it is supposed that he must humbly and thankfully accept the pardon and his returning to his allegiance is as truly the condition of his pardon as the putting forth his hand and taking it is If a Prince do offer himself in maraiage to the poorest Beggar and consequently offer Riches and Honors with himself the accepting of his person is the expressed condition more then the accepting of the riches and honors and the latter dependeth on the former If a Father give his son a purse of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him or ask him forgiveness of some fault here his kneeling down and asking him forgiveness doth more to the procurement of the gold then putting forth his hand and taking it Secondly And as for Gods Covenant in specie it is most certain that God is his own end and made and doth all things for himself And therefore it were blasphemy to say that the Covenant of Grace were so free as to respect mans wants only and not Gods Honor and Ends yea or man before God And therefore nothing is more certain then that both as to the ends and mode of the Covenant it principally respecteth the Honor of God And this is it that man is most backward to though most obliged to And therefore its apparent that this must be part yea the principal part of the condition Every man would have pardon and be saved from hell God hath promised this which you would have on condition you will yield to that which naturally you would not have You would have Happiness but God will have his preeminence and therefore you shall have no Happiness but in him You would have pardon but God will have subjection and Christ will have the honour of being the bountifull procurer of it and will be your Lord and Teacher and Sanctifier as well as Ransom If you will yield to one you shall have the other So that your Justification dependeth as much on your Taking Christ for your Lord and Master as on your receiving Justification or consenting to be pardoned by him Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Christ himself and the benefits
12 though it do not properly cleanse the hands yet it plucks off the Gloves and makes them bare for washing and Godly sorrow with its seven Daughters 2 Cor. 7.11 are clensing things Dr. Stoughton Righteous mans plea for Happ Serm. 6. pag. 32. Faith comprehends not only the Act of the Vnderstanding but the Act of the Will too so as the Will doth embrace and adhere and cleave to those Truths which the understanding conceives and not only embracing meerly by Assent to the Truth of it but by closing with the Good of it What is that but loving tasting and relishing it As faith in Christ is not only the Assenting of a mans mind that Christ is the Saviour but a resultancy of the Will on Christ as a Saviour embracing of him and loving esteeming and honouring him as a Saviour The Scripture comprehends both these together and there is a rule for it which the Rabbins give for the opening of the Scripture viz. Verba sensus etiam denotant affectus as Jo. 17.3 This is eternal life to know thee c. It is not bare Knowledge the Scripture means but Knowledge joined with affections You see Dr. Stoughton took Love to be full as near Kin to Faith as I do Many the like and more full in him I pass I cited in my Append. Alstedius Junius Paraeus Scharpius Aretius Ball c. making Faith Obedience Gratitude Conditions of the new Covenant who saith not the same If all these be homiletical and popular I much mistake them which yet I cite not as if no words might be found in any of these Authors that seem to speak otherwise but to shew that I am not wholly singular Though if I were I cannot help it when I will On the next Q. Whether a dying man may look on his Faith and Obedience Duty as the condition of the N. Cov. by him performed You would perswade me that I cannot think that I speak to the point in this but you are mistaken in me for I can mistake more then that comes to and indeed I yet think I spoke as directly to the question in your terms laid down as was possible for I changed not one of your terms but mentioned the Affirmative as your self expressed it If you did mean otherwise then you spoke I knew not that nor can yet any better understand you Only I can feel that all the difference between you and me must be decided by distinguishing of Conditions but you never yet go about it so as I can understand you You here ask me Whether I think you deny a godly life to be a comfortable Testimony or necessary qualification of a man for pardon Answer 1. But the Question is not of the significancy or Testimony nor yet of all kind of qualification that is an ambiguous term and was not in the Question but of the conditionality 2. You yield to the term Condition your self elsewhere and therefore need not shun it 3. Qualifications and Conditions are either physical and remote of which I raise no question so the Essence of the soul is a condition and so hearing the Gospel is a natural Condition of him that will understand it and understanding is a natural Qualification of him that will believe it For ignoti nulla fides But it is another sort of conditions you know that we are in speech of which I have defined and Mr. Gataker before cited viz. Moral legal conditions so called in sensu forensi vel legali when the Law of Christ hangs our actual Justification and salvation on the doing or not doing such a thing Yet do I very much distinguish between the Nature and Uses of the several Graces or Duties contained in the conditions for though they are all conditions yet they were not all for the same reason or to the same use ordained to be conditions but repentance in one sence as preparatory to faith and Faith 1. Because it honoureth Christ and debaseth our selves 2. Because it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered is the most convenient means to make us Possessors without any contempt of the Gift with other reasons that might be found So I might assign the reasons as they appear to us why God hath assigned Love to Christ and sincere Obedience and forgiving others their several parts and places in this conditionality but I have done it in my Aphorisms but then all these are drawn from the distinct nature and use of these duties Essentially in themselves considered which is but their Aptitude for the place or conditionality which they are appointed to and would of themselves have done nothing without such appointment So that it is one question to ask Why doth Faith or Works of Obedience to Christ Justifie To which I answer Because it was the pleasure of God to make them the conditions of the Covenant and not because of their own nature directly and it s another Question Why did God choose Faith to the Precedency in this work To which I answer 1. Properly there is no cause of Gods actions without himself 2. But speaking of him after the manner of men as we must do it is because Faith is fitter then any other Grace for this Honor and Office as being both a high honouring of God by believing him that 's as for Assent and in its own Essential nature a hearty thankfull Acceptance of his Son both to be our Lord which is both for the Honor of God and our own good and our Saviour to deliver and glorifie us and so is the most rational way that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured happiness without either our own danger if a heavier condition had been laid upon us or the dishonour of the Mediator either by diminishing the estimation of the favour if we had done any more to the procuring it our selves or by contempt of the Gift if we had not been required and conditioned with so much as thankfully and lovingly to accept it And then if the Question be Why God hath assigned sincere Obedience and Perseverance therein to that place of secondary Conditionality for the continuance and consummation of Justification and for the attaining of salvation I answer Not because they have any such Receptive nature as faith but because Faith being an Acceptance of Christ as Lord also and delivering and resigning up the soul to him accordingly in Covenant this Duty is therefore necessarily implyed as the thing promised by us in that Covenant and so in some sence greater then the covenanting it self or the end of it and Christ never intended to turn man out of his service and discharge him from Obedience but to lay on him an easier and lighter yoak and burden to learn of him c. and therefore well may he make this the condition of their finding Ease and Rest to their souls Mat. 11.28 29. For for this end he dyed that he might be Lord Rom.
offered you that you take them thankfully lovingly humbly renouncing your own worth c. are necessary parts of the condition of your pardon There is as great a Necessity laid upon that part of the Condition which Christs honour lieth on and that in order to your Justification as of that part which directly respecteth your Salvation And me thinks common reason and ingenuity should tell you that it must be so and that its just and meet it should be so And therefore I may safely conclude ex natura rei that the taking of Christ for our â—eacher and Lord is as truly a part of the condition of our Justification and our Justification lieth as much upon it as the Affiance in Christs sufferings If you say But the efficiency is not equal though it be equally a Condition I answer Neither of them have any proper efficiency in justifying us unless you will unfitly call the Conditionality an Efficiency or the Acceptableness of believing in the sight of God an efficiency there is no such thing to be ascribed to our faith as to the effect of Justification But this belongs to another Controversie I know not what can be said more against this unless by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any proper Condition but only a priority and posteriority of Duties But the express conditional terms of the Covenant do put this so far out of doubt and I have said so much of it in other writings that I shall not trouble my self here with this sort of Adversaries Only to prevent their mistake I shall tell them this that in a condition there is somewhat Essential and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promise and therefore they are proper conditions and there is somewhat Accidental as First sometime that the thing be Vncertain to the Promiser This is not in Gods Conditions It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent Secondly That the matter of the condition be somewhat that is gainfull to the Promiser or otherwise have a merit or moral causality But this is separable In our case it is sufficient that it be somewhat that God liketh loveth or is pleasing to him though it properly merit not And the evident Reason why God hath made some Promises conditional is that his Laws and Promises may be perfectly suited to the nature of man on whom they must work and so may shew forth Gods Infinite Wisdom and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor As also that the Holiness of God may shine forth in his Word and it may be seen that he loveth Justice Holiness Obedience and not only the persons of men and so all his Attributes may be seen in their conjunction and the beauty that thence resulteth in the Glass of his Word Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet than the faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Only the Antecedent needs proof though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also Here note that by The condemning Vnbelief I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel Where I suppose first that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin Secondly And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace which is not simply for sin as sin but for one sort of sin in special that is the final rejection of the Remedy And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake The Antecedent I prove First from John 3.18 19 20 21. He that believeth on him is not condemned There 's the justifying faith But he that believeth not is condemned already There 's the condemning unbelief contradictory to the justifying faith Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God here is a special condemnation proved distinct from that by the Law of works And this is the condemnation that is the condemning sin or cause that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil For every one that doth evil hateth the light c. The 19 verse describeth the Condemning unbelief and the 20. gives the reason of mens guiltiness of it And the unbelief described is a shunning or not coming to Christ as he is the Light to discover and heal their evil deeds So that if contradictories will but shew the nature of each other I think our controversie is here plainly resolved So is it in Psal 2.12 Kise the Son left he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed are all they that put their trust in him The faith that saves from punishment saveth from Guilt The faith that saves from Guilt is justifying faith The faith here described is that which saves from punishment And the faith here described is kissing the Son which comprehendeth subjection and dependance and love and is the same for all that which is after called trusting in him So Luke 19.27 But those mine enemies which would not that I should raign over them bring hither and destroy them before me Unwillingness to have Christ raign over them is here made not a common but the special condemning sin called commonly Unbelief and so is the contrary to justifying faith So John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son this as all confess is justifying faith hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation the contradictory or contrary to justifying faith First because they are so directly opposed here denominatively that else the words would be equivocal and not intelligible Secondly Because the contrariety of effects also is added to put the thing past doubt The wrath of God abideth on him is contrary to justifying which takes the wrath of God off him especially considering that it is cursing comminatory obliging wrath that is principally meant the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation And that materially this unbelief thus opposed to justifying faith doth consist in contumacy rebellion or unperswadableness is plain in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie They that are contumacious or disobedient to the Son or unperswadable And 1 John 5.10 11 12. This faith and unbelief are opposed and the unbelief consisteth in not
alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relations variously act according to them And do not men that make address address themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a Father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come to him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cured by him Believers through faith go to Christ that hears all the Relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priesthood they are justified Repl. I ever granted that we are justified by trusting in Christs blood But not only by that Secondly It was God that sought satisfaction in Christs blood the Believer seeks for the fruit of that satisfactition Thirdly But now to the distinction I shall tell you freely my thought of it and the reasons of my resisting your use of it and then answer your reasons for it And first We must understand what it is that is distinguished whether the Habit of faith or the Acts As far as I am able to understand them they that understand themselves do intend to distinguish of the Habit by a virtual distinction and their meaning is The Habit of Faith which produceth both these acts doth justifie but not as it produceth the act of believing in Christ as Lord Teacher c. but as it produceth the Act of believing in his blood that is The habit is the remote cause and the act is the nearer cause and the habit justifieth by this Act and not by the other I verily think this is their meaning I am sure this is the most probable and rational that I can imagine But then first This contradicteth their ordinary assertion that it is not the Habit of faith but the act by which we are justified Secondly Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Christ as Lord c. is so much as the fides qua which if they will speak out and make no more ado the controversie will be much better understood For then it is a question that 's easily apprehended Whether only the act of faith in Christs satisfaction do justifie or the believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet or all that is essential to Christian faith This is a plain case which fides qua and qua do not illustrate But then I must add that this begs the question as used by them but decideth it not And as qua respecteth but the Matter of the condition q. d. The habit as it produceth this act and not that is the condition of Justification for else it justifieth neither as it produceth the one or the other so it is the very Question between us Whether it be one act or the whole essence of the Christian faith that is the Condition And this supposeth the determination of other controversies that are not yet determined There are three opinions of the Habit of faith First that the several acts of faith have several habits Secondly that the divers acts have but one habit of faith distinct from the habits of other graces Thirdly That faith love and all graces have but one habit If the first hold then the distinction as before explained hath no place If the last hold then the Habit of Love or Fear may be on the same ground said to justifie If I have before hit on their meaning then the distinction of the Habit is virtualis and the distinction of the acts is realis and they totally exclude all acts save that which they fix upon not from being present but from a co-interest But from what interest Of a Cause that we deny even to all Of a Condition that they grant to these which they exclude Next we must understand the members of their Distinction And sometime they express one branch to be fides qua justificat and sometime fides qua apprehendit Christum satisfacienrem c. As to the former it cannot be contradistinct from faith in Christ as Lord but from faith as sanctifying c. it being but a denominative or virtual distinction of one and the same faith from the several consequents And so I easily grant that fides qua justificat non sanct ficat vel glorificat and so of all the consequents of it As it is the condition of one it is not the condition of the other which is no more then to say that there is between the consequents Distinctio realis from whence the antecedent Really the same may be denominatively or virtually distinguished As the same man that goeth before a hundred particular men hath a hundred distinct Relations to them as Before them all The very same condition in a free Gift may be the condition of many hundred benefits and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively distinguished when yet it is as truly the condition of all as of one and hath equal interest as to the procurement And as for the other phrase that fides qua recipit Christum satisfacientem justificat properly it is false Docrine if qua signifie the nearest Reason of faiths interest in procuring justification for then it is but to say that fides qua fides justificat which is false The denomination and the description express but the same thing fides is the denomination and Receptio Christi is the description if therefore it justifie qua Receptio Christi then it justifieth qua fides that is qua haec fides in specie which is to ascribe it to the ◠credere with a witness And elsewhere I have disproved it by many Arguments But if qua be taken less properly as denoting only the aptitude of faith to be the condition of Justification then still the Question is begged For we say that as the act of believing in Christs blood-shed hath a special aptitude in one respect so the act of believing in his Resurrection Intercession c. and receiving him as King Teacher c. hath a special aptitude in other respects upon which God hath certainly made them the Conditions of our Justification with the other But if any should distinguish of the act of faith and not the Habit and say that fides qua credit in Christum ut Regem justificat sed non quâ credit in Christum ut Regem I accept the former as being all that I desire and grant the latter But then I say the like of the other act of faith that fides quâ credit in Christum satisfacientem non justificat because fides quà fides non justificat sed fides quâ conditio praestita And I think I need to say no more for the opening the Fallacy that this distinction useth to cover And now I come to peruse all that I can find that is produced to support this distinction And the most is certain pretended
act it self and therefore it is not faith as faith that is as it is an apprehension of Christ or recumbency on him that Justifyeth nor yet as an Instrument thus acting The nature of the act is but its aptitude to its office or justifying Interest and not the formal cause of it Proposition 6. No work or act of man is any true proper cause of his justification as Justification is commonly taken in the Gospel neither Principal or Instrumental The highest Interest that they can have is but to be a condition of our Justification and so a Dispositio moralis which therefore some call cansa dispositiva and some causa sine qua non and it s indeed but a Nominall cause and truly no cause at all Proposition 7. Whatsoever works do stand in opposition to Christ or disjunct from him yea or that stand not in a due subordination to him are so far from Justifying even as conditions that they are sins which do deserve condemnation Proposition 8. Works as taken for the Imperate Acts of Obedience external distinct from the first Radical Graces are not so much as conditions of our Justification as begun or our being put into a Justified state Proposition 9. Repentance from dead works denying our our selves renouncing our own Righteousness c. much less external Obedience are not the receptive condition of our Justification as faith is that is Their nature is not to be an actual Acceptance of Christ that is they are not faith and therefore are not designed on that account to be the Condition of our Justification Proposition 10. God doth not justifie us by Imputing our own faith to us in stead of perfect Obedience to the Law as if it were sufficient or esteemed by him sufficient to supply its place For it is Christs Righteousness that in point of value and merit doth supply its place nor doth any work of ours justifie us by satisfying for our sins for that 's the work of Christ the Mediator Our faith and love and obedience which are for the receiving and improving of him and his Righteousness and so stand in full subordination to him are not to be made co-partners of his office or honor Affirm Proposition first We are justified by the merits of a perfect sinless Obedience of Christ together with his sufferings which he performed both to the Law of nature the Law of Moses and the Law which was proper to himself as Mediator as the subject obliged Proposition 2. There is somewhat in the nature of faith it self in specie which makes it fit to be elected and appointed by God to be the great summary Condition of the Gospel that it be Receptive an Acceptance of Christ is the nature of the thing but that it be a condition of our Justification is from the will and constitution of the Donor and Justifier Proposition 3. There is also somewhat in the nature of Repentance self-denyal renouncing all other Saviours and our own righteousness desiring Christ loving Christ intending God and Glory as our end procured by Christ confessing sin c. which make them apt to be Dispositive Conditions and so to be comprized or implyed in faith the summary Receptive condition as its necessary attendants at least Proposition 4. Accordingly God hath joyned these together in his Promise and constitution making faith the summary and receptive Condition and making the said acts of Repentance self-denyal renouncing our own righteousness disclaiming in heart Justification by the works of the Law and the renouncing of all other Saviours also the desiring and loving of Christ offered and the willing of God as our God and the renouncing of all other Gods and so of the world flesh and devil at least in the resolution of the heart I say making these the dispositive Conditions which are ever implyed when faith only is expressed some of them as subservient to faith and perhaps some of them as real parts of faith it self Of which more anon Proposition 5. The Gospel promiseth Justification to all that will Believe or are Believers To be a Believer and to be a Disciple of Christ in Scripture sense is all one and so is it to be a Disciple and to be a Christian therefore the sense of the promise is that we shall be justified if we become true Christians or Disciples of Christ and therefore justifying faith comprehendeth all that is essential to our Discipleâ—ship or Christianity as its constitutive causes Proposition 6. It is not therefore any one single Act of faith alone by which we are justified but it is many Physical acts conjunctly which constitute that faith which the Gospel makes the condition of Life Those therefore that call any one Act or two by the name of justifying faith and all the rest by the name of works and say that it is only the act of recumbency on Christ as Priest or on Christ as dying for us or only the act of apprehending or accepting his imputed Righteousness by which we are justified and that our Assent or Acceptance of him as our Teacher and Lord our desire of him our love to him our renouncing other Saviours and our own Righteousness c. are the works which Paul doth exclude from our Justification and that it is Jewish to expect to be justified by these though but as Conditions of Justification these persons do mistake Paul and pervert the Doctrine of Faith and Justification and their Doctrine tendeth to corrupt the very nature of Christianity it self Though yet I doubt not but any of these acts conceited meritorious or otherwise as before explained in the Negative if men can believe contradictories may be the matter of such works as Paul excludeth And so may that one act also which they appropriate the name of justifying faith to Proposition 7. Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a condition of our continuance in a state of Justification or of our not losing it And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord at our departure hence Proposition 8. Our Faith Love and Works of Love or sincere Obedience are conditions of our sentential Justification by Christ at the particular and general Judgement which is the great Justification And so as they will prove our Interest in Christ our Righteousness so will they materially themselves justifie us against the particular false Accusation of being finally impenitent Unbelievers not Loving not obeying sincerely For to deny a false accusation is sufficient to our Justification Proposition 9. As Glorification and Deliverance from Hell is by some called Executive pardon or Justification so the foresaid acts are conditions of that execution which are conditions of Justification by the sentence of the Judge Proposition 10. As to a real inherent Justice or Justification in this life we have it in part in our Sanctification and Obedience and in the life to come we shall have it in perfection So much for the
said Causalitas quaedam which is terminus diminuens If quoad esse causalitatis it be terminus diminuens then the meaning is that I make them no causes But do you think any Reader will English Causalitas quaedam by no Causality But doubtless you mean that it is Terminus diminuens as to the quality or nobility of the cause But first I never heard before that quaedam was terminus diminuens and if no Readers must understand you but those that know this to be true I think it will be but few Secondly But what if that were so Did you not know that I denyed even all causality how diminute soever quaedam can express if it be but real Thirdly But you added Concurrence But it was in Concurrence with the several unjust passages before mentioned and sure the neighbour-hood of that word hath not force enough to make them all true Preface My Reverend Brother saith He vehemently disclaimeth all Causality of works in Justification surely his meaning is all Proper causal efficiency and so did I in the stating of it But to deny Causality in a large sense is to contradict himself Answer If so what hope of Justice Must I in paper after paper disclaim all true Causality and will you not only perswade the world of the contrary but persist in it whether I will or not and say I mean a proper causal efficiency Reader I have no other remedy left but to advise thee that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I disclaim not all true causality or mean not as I say thou believe not the affirmation Preface For in his Aphoris 74. Thes They both viz. Faith and Works justifie in the same kind of causality or mediate it should be media and improper causes or as Dr. Twiss causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal Obedience as the less principal Here is causality though improper Here is a causa dispositiva and yet shall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit Answer This is but to add injustice When I have written at large that faith and works are no true causes of Justification and after tell you that a condition is commonly called causa sine qua non which is causa fatua and no cause at all but meerly nominal having by custom obtained that name and that Dr. Twiss calls this causa dispositiva when I say that they have only a causality improperly to called which indeed is no causality Is it justice for you still to perswade the world that I mean some causality though not efficiency The thing I renounce the name is not it that you only charge me with if you had I was not the maker of it It was called causa sine qua non before I was born I must comply with common language or be silent especially when I tell you I take it for no Cause You give me such justice as the hoast of the Crown Tavern in Cheap-side had who as Speed saith was hanged for saying merrily that his Son was Heir of the Crown and his exposition would not save his life I pray you hereafter remove more then Efficiency and Merit I take not works to be either the material or formal cause of Justification no nor the final though you in the words before cited affirm it such Who then gives more to works you or I The final cause is so called because it causeth us to choose the means to it Justification is not a means of our using but an act of God Therefore works are not properly the end of it as to us And yet let me say this to you lest you should mistake me As vehemently as I disown all true causality of works to our Justification I intend not to fall out with all men that call them causes As first Not with Piscator nor such other that call them causes of our final absolution and salvation Secondly Nor with those that call them meritorious in the same sense as the Fathers did though they unfitly use the word Thirdly Nor with those that will say that because they please God and so are the object of his complacency and will they may therefore speaking after the manner of men be called Procatarctike causes of his act of Justification and so that the Amiableness and desirableness of faith and holiness is the cause why he assigned them to this Noble place and office Fourthly Nor with them that say faith is a moral or a Metaphorical passive or active Instrument of Justification Though I say not as these men I will not quarrel with them Preface But I need not run to this for my Arguments militate against works at works justifying under any pretended Notion whatsoever Answer By the help of this I shall interpret all your Arguments And if so then they militate against the act of faith justifying under the pretended notion of an Instrument unless you will say that faith is no Act or Instrumentality is no pretended notion Preface And this maketh me admire how my learned Brother could let fall one passage wherein he may be so palpably and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the first looking upon my Arguments that which he saith is the strength of my Arguments lies upon a supposition that conditions have a moral efficiency There is no one of these ten Arguments brought against Justification by works as a Condition sine qua non that is built upon this supposition or hath any dependance on it only in the fourth Argument after their strength is delivered I do ex abundanti shew that a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a moral efficiency Answer First you confess it is your Assertion that such Conditions have a moral efficiency Secondly I never said that you made that a Medium in all your Arguments nor that you intended that as their strength but that their strength lyeth on that supposition and if I have mistaken in that I will not stand in it But I think to shew you that without that supposition your Arguments have no strength which if I do then judge at what you marvailed But it s a farther act of injustice in you in alleadging me Apol. pag. 8. saying that some conditions are impulsive causes when I told you it is not qua conditions but only as materially there is somewhat in them that is meritorious I doubt not but the same thing may be the matter of a cause and a condition I shall now return to your Lect. of Justification and there speak to the other passage in your preface about justifying Repentance and Love c. Treat pag. 220. This therefore I shall God willing undertake to prove that good works are not a condition or a cause sine qua non of our Justification Answer But remember that it is Justification either as begun in constitution or continued or as pronounced by the Judges Sentence that the Question comprehendeth and not only the
Either you ask this question as of a penitent Believer or the finally impenitent Vnbeliever If of the former I say First All his sins Christs righteousness pardoneth and covereth and consequently all the failings in Gospel duties Secondly But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Christ pardoneth not because he is not guilty of it he hath none such to pardon but hath the personal righteousness of a performer of the conditions of the Gospel And for the finally impenitent Infidels the answer is because they rejected that Righteousness which was able to satisfie and would not return to God by him and so not performing the condition of pardon have neither the pardon of that sin nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them If this Doctrine be the avoiding the good known way there is a good known way besides that which is revealed in the Gospel And if this be so hard a point for you to receive I bless God it is not so to me And if it be far more easie to maintain one single righteousness viz. imputed only it will not prove so safe as easie If one righteousness may serve may not Pilate and Simon Magus be justified if no man be put to prove his part in it and if he be how shall he prove it but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift Treat pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of Justification which it self needeth Justification But good works being imperfect and having much dross cleaving need a Justification to take that guilt away Answ First Again hearken all you that have so long denyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all Here is an Argument to maintain your cause for it makes as much against faith as any other acts which they call works for faith is imperfect also and needs Justification a pardon I suppose you mean I had rather talk of pardoning my sins then justifying them or any imperfections what ever Secondly But indeed it s too gross a shift to help your cause The Major is false and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can see Faith and Repentance are considerable First As sincere Secondly As imperfect They are not the conditions of pardon as imperfect but as sincere God doth not say I will pardon you if you will not perfectly believe but If you will believe Imperfection is sin and God makes not sin a condition of pardon and life I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could seem a sufficiennt reason for this Proposition that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon It s true that in the same respect as it needs a pardon that is as it is a sin it can be no condition But faith as faith Repentance as Repentance is no sin Treat ibid. It s true Justification is properly of persons and of actions indirectly and obliquely Answ The clean contrary is true as of Justification in general and as among men ordinarily The action is first accusasable or justifiable and so the person as the cause of that Action But in our Justification by Christs satisfaction our Actions are not justifiable at all save only that we have performed the condition of the Gift that makes his righteousness ours Treat pag. 233. This question therefore is again and again to be propounded If good works be the condition of our Justification how comes the guilt in them that deserveth condemnation to be done away Is there a further condition required to this condition and so another to that with a processus in infinitum Answ Once may serve turn for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it But if so again and again you shall be answered The Gospel giveth Christ and life upon the same condition to all This condition is first a duty and then a condition As a duty we perform it imperfectly and so sinfully for the perfection of it is a duty but the perfection is not the condition but the sincerity Sincere Repentance and faith is the condition of the pardon of all our sins therefore of their own Imperfections which are sins Will you ask now If faith be imperfect how comes the guilt of that Imperfection to be pardoned is it by a further condition and so in infinitum No it is on tht same condition sincere repentance and faith are the conditions of a pardon for their own Imperfections Is there any difficulty in this or is there any doubt of it Why may not faith be a condition as well as an Instrument of receiving the pardon of its own Imperfection I hope still you perceive that you put these questions to others as well as me and argue against the common Judgement of Protestants who make that which is imperfect to be the condition of pardon Repent and be baptized saith Peter for the remission of sin Of what sin is any excepted to the Penitent Believer certainly no It is of all sins And is not the imperfection of faith and repentance a sin The same we say of sincere obedience as to the continuance of our Justification or the not losing it and as to our final Justification If we sincerely obey God will adjudge us to salvation and so justifie us by his final sentence through the blood of Christ from all the imperfections of that obedience what need therefore of running any further towards an infinitum Treat ibid. The Popish party and the Castellians are so far convinced of this that therefore they say our good works are perfect And Castellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly Answ It seems they are partly Quakers But they are unhappy souls if such an Argument could drive them to such an abominable opinion And yet if this that you affirm be the cause that Papists have taken up the doctrine of perfection I have more hopes of their recovery then I had before nay because they are some of them men of ordinary capacities I take it as if it were done already For the Remedy is most obvious Understand Papists that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience to Christ in Truth and not in Perfection that is the Condition of your final Justification at Judgement and you need not plead for perfection any more But I hardly believe you that this is the cause of their error in this point And you may see that if Protestants had no more Wit then Papists they must all be driven by the violence of your Argument to hold that Faith and Repentance are perfect And seeing you tell us of Castellio's absurdity I would intreat you to tell us why it is that you pray for pardon your selves either you take Prayer to be Means to obtain pardon or you do not If not then 1. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon 2. And then if once it be taken for no means men cannot be blamed if they use it but accordingly But if you
Word of Answ 1. We say not that Jams calls them a condition therefore we add not to him as his 2. Every Exposition and application is an addition of another sort but not as of the same 3. I use not the active phrase that Works justifie agreeing so far with you who note a difference between these sayings Faith justifieth and we are justified by faith for all that Mr. Blake despiseth the observation which perhaps he would scarce have done if he had known that you had being guilty of it also 4. Scripture supposeth Grammer Logick Physicks c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part If James tell you that we are justified by works he doth not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a verb and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a noun and so of the rest but he warranteth you to say so without any unjust addition supposing that Grammer so call them If the Scripture say that God created the Heavens and the earth it doth not say here in terms that God was the efficient cause but it warranteth you to say so If it say that Christ dyed for us and was a Sacrifice for our sins and hath obtained eternal redemption for us yet it saith not that he is the meritorious cause or the material cause of our Justification But it will warrant you to say so without the guilt of unjust additions If you may say as a Grammarian and a Logitian when you meet with such words in Scripture These are Paronyma and these Synonyma and these Homonyma and this is an universal that a singular that a particular and that an indefinite this is an efficient cause that a material formal or final this is a noun that a verb the other a participle or an adverb I pray you then why may not I say when I read in Rom. 10.9 that If thou confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart c. that If is a conjunction conditional Is this adding to the Scripture unjustly If I did when ever I read that we are justified by faith collect thence that faith is an Instrumental cause as if by were only the note of an Instrument then you might have accused me of unwarrantable addition or collections indeed Lastly If you have a mind to it I am content that you say by the unscriptural names or additions as you speak of nouns pronouns verbs antecedents consequents efficient or material causes c. and I will lay by the name of a condition as you do of an Instrument and we will only use the Scripture phrase which is If you forgive men your Father will forgive you if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive we are justified by faith without the works of the Law A man is justified by works and not by faith only By thy Words thou shalt be justified Every man shall be judged according to his works c. Let us keep to Scripture phrase if you desire it and you shall find me as backward as any to lay much stress upon terms of Art Having gone thus far I shall in brief give you a truer reconciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us 1. They debate different questions 2. And that with different sorts of persons 3. And speak directly of different sorts of works 4. And somewhat differ in the sense of the word Faith 5. And somwhat about the word Justification 6. And they speak of works in several Relations to Justification 1. The Question that Paul disputed was principally Whether Justification be by the works of the Mosaical Law and consequently by any mercenary works without Christ or in Co-ordination with Christ or any way at all conjunct with Christ The question that James disputed was Whether men are justified by meer believing without Gospel-Obedience 2. The persons that Paul disputed against were 1 The unbelieving Jews that thought the Mosaical Law was of such perfection to the making of men righteous that there needed no other much less should it be abrogate Where specially note that the righteousness which the Jews expected by that Law was not as is commonly imagined a righteousness of sinless obedience such as was required of Adam but a mixt Righteousness consisting of accurate Obedience to the Mosaical Law in the main course of their lives and exact sacrificing according to that Law for the pardon of their sins committed wherein they made express confession of sin so that these two they thought sufficient to justifie and lookt for the Messias but to free them from captivity and repair their Temple Law c. And 2. Paul disputed against false Teachers that would have joyned these two together the Righteousness of Moses Law and Faith in Christ as necessary to life But James disputed against false Christians that thought it enough to salvation barely to believe in Christ or lived as if they so thought its like misunderstanding Pauls Doctrine of Justification as many now do 3. The works that Paul speaks of directly are the services appointed by Moses Law supposed to be sufficient because of the supposed sufficiency of that Law So that its all one with him to be justified by the Law and to be justified by works and therefore he ofter speaks against Justification by the Law expresly and usually stileth the works he speaks of the works of the Law yet by consequence and a parity of Reason he may well be said to speak against any works imaginable that are set in opposition to Christ or competition with him and that are supposed meritorious and intended as Mercenary But James speaks of no works but Obedience to God in Christ and that as standing in due subordination to Christ 4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Justification Paul means our Assent to all the essential Articles of the Gospel together with our Acceptance of Jesus Christ the Lord as such and affiance in him that is To be a Believer and so to have faith is with Paul to be a Disciple of Christ or a Christian Though sometime he specially denominates that faith from one part of the object the promise sometime from another the blood of Christ sometime from a third his obedience And in other cases he distinguisheth Faith from Hope and Charity but not in the business of Justification considering them as respecting Christ and the ends of his blood But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion such as the Devils themselves had 5. Paul speaks of Justification in its whole state as begun and continued But James doth principally if not only speak of Justification as continued Though if by works any understand a disposition to work in faith or conjunct with it as Dr. Iackson doth so his words are true of initial Justification also 6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned Paul speaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal personal Righteousness
as flat conditions of her continuing her enjoyments as the marriage Covenant was of first obtaining them To my second Answer you shew that Paul excludes works under any notion 1. From his opposition between faith and works where you say I contradict Paul and give a tertium To which I answer to distinguish of Pauls terms and explain his meaning in his own words is not to give a tertium or contradict but this is all that I do I distinguish of the word Works sometime it is taken more largely for Acts or Actions and so James takes it sometimes more strictly for only such Actions as a Labourer performeth for his Wages or which make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt So Paul tells you that he understandeth or useth the term Rom. 4.4 usually therefore calling them Works of the Law Now he that excludes Works only under this notion doth not therefore exclude them under every notion Where you add that Pauls opposition is between Faith and any thing of ours I answer 1. Is not Faith ours as much Love c 2. Are not Knowledge Words Works ours by all which God saith we are justified 3. There is no such Scripture where Paul makes any such opposition but only he renounceth his own Righteousness which is of the Law Phil. 3.8 9. and any thing of our own that may be called Works in the stricter sence Your second is because Paul excludes Abrahams works c. Answer 1. You make my tertium to be works that are of Grace and here again works that flow from Grace and say Abrahams were not by meer strength of the Law But these are no words of mine nor is it candid to feign them to be mine but that I impute it to your haste I believe you remembred so well the words of Andradius Bellarmine and other Papists that they dropped from your pen in haste in stead of mine nor is my sence any whit like theirs for I speak not of the efficient cause of works Nature or Grace nor the meer command requiring them when I speak of Law and Gospel but the full entire Covenant or Law consisting of all its parts and so making our Acts the conditions of the Punishment or Reward as I have opened over and over in my Book 2. You ask Were Abrahams works in opposition to that c Answer 1. Paul excludes also works in co-ordination with Christ and so do I. 2. Yea and works supposed to be subordinate to Christ which are not capable of a real subordination 3. but not such as are truly subordinate from being such conditions as is before said 4. You seem to me to mistake Paul much as if he took it for granted that Abraham had such works which Paul disputeth against but could not be justified by them Whereas I doubt not to say that Paul contrarily supposeth that Abraham had no such Works which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and therefore could not be justified by them Your third Argument is because imputing covering all is wholly attributed to God Answer I doubt not but that God is the only Principal efficient Cause and his Promise or Covenant the Instrumental therefore I cannot think as others that man is the efficient Instrumental by believing or that Faith is such But what Is all therefore attributed to God Even the performance of the Conditions on mans part Or are there no such conditions which man must perform himself or perish God only covereth sin imputeth Righteousness c. but to none who have not performed the Conditions Is Believing attributed to God or is it an act of man Or is it excluded When will you prove the Consequence of this Argument Your fifth Argument is because the Assertion is universal without works in general Answer 1. Doth not the Apostle contradict you by expounding himself in the very next verse before those you cite Rom. 4.4 That by works he means not simply good Actions as James doth but such as make the reward to be of debt and not of Grace Indeed such works are universally excluded 2. Therefore he excludes the very presence of works and saith to him that worketh not c. ver 5. But the presence of good actions you say is not excluded Your last Argument seems to me the same with the fourth and it forceth me to admire that you should think the consequence good Blessedness is when sin is forgiven therefore no work or good act performed by man is the condition of forgiveness either as begun or continued or consummate If this be not your consequence you say nothing against me if it be I assure you it is not in my Power to believe it nor to discern the least shaddow of probability of truth in it nor to free it from the charge of being the grossest Antinomianism si pace tui ità dicam And here I must needs tell you also my utter disability to reconcile you with your self for you before say they are media ordinata and here you say They are excluded under any notion As if to be a medium were no notion or the medium did nothing in or to the very justifying of the person To my next Answer If works be excluded under any notion then James his words cannot be true that we are justified by works You reply If there be justifying works how saith Paul true I answer This is a most evident Petitio principii It is undeniable that James includeth works under some notion and that Paul excludeth them under some other notion now therefore I might well ask How saith James true else Because my supposition cannot be denyed But you suppose that Paul excludeth works under any notion which is the very Question and is denyed When you ask how saith Paul true Paul saith true because he speaks of works strictly taken as is by himself explained James could not say true if works under every notion as you say be excluded Next you come to reconcile them by expounding James where you say Faith which in respect of its Act ad intra only justifies yet it works ad extra fides quae viva non qua viva I answer What 's this to the Question The Question is not whether Faith work Nor whether Faith justifie Nor what Faith justifieth But in what sence James saith we are justified by works and not by Faith only You answer by a direct contradiction to James if I can reach the sence of your Answer saying It is by Faith only and that not as it liveth c. So dare not I directly say it is not by works when God saith it is but think I am bound to distinguish and shew in what sence works justifie and in what not and not to say flatly against God that we are not justified by works under any notion but only by the Faith which worketh A denyal of Gods Assertions is an ill expounding of them To what you say of the
only an ineptitudo materiei which is in all alike at first and so all should be alike rejecters 7. If to believe be but Pati then it is God and not man that should be perswaded For perswasion is either to Action or forbearing Action and God is the Agent But it is in vain to perswade any to be Passive except it be not to strive against it This therefore would overthrow much of the use of the Ministry 8. And then when Christ so extolleth doing the will of God and doing his Commandments c. you will exclude justifying faith as being no doing 9. Is it credible that when Christ cals faith Obeying the Gospel and saith This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom the father hath sent and calls it the work of faith 2 Thes 1.11 and saith God giveth to will that is to believe and to do c. that all this is meant of meer Passion I undertake to bring forty places of Scripture that shew faith to be Action 10. It seemeth to me so great a debasing of faith as to make it to be no vertue at all nor to have any moral good in it For though I have read of Passio perfectiva in genere entis vel naturae and conducible to vertue Yet am I not convinced yet that any Passion as such hath any moral vertue in it Indeed Passion may be the quasi materiale but the vertue is in Action Yea even in non-acting as silence the vertue lies formally in the actual exercise of the Authority of Reason and so obeying God in causing that silence Sure if men shall be all judged according to their works and according to what they have done c. then it will not be because they did either Pati vel non pati And thus you have some of my reasons why I cannot believe that Believing is passion nor shall believe it I think till Credere be Pati and then I may whether I will or no because pati vel non pati are not in my choice 3. The third Question is Whether faith be passive in its instrumentality And I think that is out of doubt if my former arguing have proved that faith is not passive at all or if I next prove that faith is no physical instrument But yet if I should grant both that faith is passive and that it is an Instrument yet must I have either more or less Logick before I can believe that it is passive in its instrumentality My reasons against it are these 1. Every Instrumental cause is an efficient cause but all true efficiency is by action therefore all instrumentality is by action That causalitas efficientis est Actio haec est forma per quam denominatur efficiens quia agens efficiens sunt idem c. I have been taught so oft and so confidently that I believe it For oportet discentem credere and that by Philosophers of no mean esteem as Suarez Tom. 1. disp 18. § 10. Javel Metaph l. 9. q. 16. Conim Colleg. Phys l. 2. q. 6. art 2. 7. Scaliger Exerit 254. Aquinas Ruvio Porrece Melancth Zanchius Zabarel Pererius Schibler Stierius Gu. Tempell in Ram. with many more And if there be no such thing in rerum natura as a Passive instrument then faith is none such I know Keckerm Alsted Burgersdicius do talk of a Passive instrument but I think in proper speech it is a contradiction in adjecto and say as Schibler Metaphys l. 1. cap. 22. Tit. 7. p. 319. Nisi Actionem propriam haberet Instrumentum efficiens non esset proinde passivum instrumentum quod Keckerm vocat revera instrumentum non est Et ut Idem Topic. cap. 2. num 34. Instrumentum totum hoc habet quod ad causam efficientem adjuvantem ad quam referimus causam instrumentalem requiritur Ratio enim communis illarum est haec Deservire operationi principalis agentis per ulteriorem operationem Et Idem Topic. cap. 2. num 6. Quer. An efficientis Causalitas Actio Resp Ita ponitur in Theor. 36. sentit it a hâ—die Maxima pars Logicorum Metaphysicorum Vide ultra pro confirmatione ad nu 9. Sic etiam cap. 3. num 136. So that if most Logicians judge that there is no passive instrument and consequently that faith is no passive instrument then who is more singular you or I For sure Nihil est falsum in Theologia quod verum est in Philosophia I deny not but the soul in believing is both Passive and instrumental but in several respects as if Camero's way should hold of infusing grace into the will Mediante actione intellectus then the intellect would be Passive or receiving grace into it self and an instrument of conveying it to the will but then it would be no Passive but an Active instrument and the action of God on the Passive intellect and of the intellect on the will are two Actions with distinct effects 2. Though there were such a thing in the world as a Passive instrument yet that faith should be such and that physical I dare say is either an unfit assertion or else I am of a stupid apprehension For there must be found in it if it were such these four requisites 1. There must be a physical passion or reception 2. A physical efficiency 3. This efficiency must be patiendo non agendo 4. And it must be such an efficiency as is proper to instruments I may not stand to enquire exactly into all these 1. The first I have confuted already and shall add this much more 1. What doth faith thus receive 2. How doth it receive it 3. Whence Or from what Agent and Act 1. Is it Christ himself that is physically received by faith 1. Who dare say so but the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation men and perhaps not they Christ is in Heaven and we on earth A multitude of blasphemers Libertines and Familists I lately meet with that dream of this but no sober man 2. And indeed if Christs person were thus received it would not make a man righteous or justifie him As all our Divines say his being in the body of Mary would not have justified her Nor did the kissing of his lips justifie Judas nor eating and drinking in his presence justifie those that must depart from him for working iniquity Matthew 7. If we had so known Christ we should know him no more It was necessary to his Disciples that he should go from them we must not have the Capernaites conceit of eating his flesh Yea to talk of a physical receiving by faith is far grosser For the mouth was capable of that physical contact which faith is not 3. And then this will not stand with their Judgement that blame me for making Christ himself the object of justifying faith and not the promise directly 2. If you say that the thing received is Christs righteousness as most do that I read I
all but in the proper ordinary sence as an Instrument signifieth Causam quae influit in effectum per virtutem inferioris rationis as Suarez Stierius Arnisaeus c. Vel Instrumentum est quod ex directione alterius principalis agentis influit ad produceâ—dum effectum se nobiliorem ut Schibler c. So I utterly deny Faith to be an Instrument But I will first question whether it be a physical Instrument 2. Whether a moral 1. And for the first I have done it already for seeing our acute Divines have ceased to lay any claim to it as an active Instrument but only as a Passive therefore having disproved what they claim I have done enough to that 2. Yet I will add some more And 1. If it be a physical active Instrument it must have a physical active Influx to the producing of the Effect but so hath not Faith to the producing of our Justification Ergo c. The Major is apparent from the common definition of such Instruments The Minor will be as evident if we consider but what Gods Act in Justification is and then it would appear impossible that any act of ours should be such an Instrument 1. At the great Justification at Judgement Christs act is to sentence us acquit and discharged and doth our Faith activè sixae influere ad hunc effectum Doth it intervene between Christ and the effect and so actively justifie us Who will say so 2. And the act by which God justifieth us here is by a Deed of Gift in his Gospel as I Judge Now 1. That doth immediately produce the effect only supposing Faith as a condition 2. And it is but a moral Instrumental cause it self and how faith can be a Physical I know not 3. Nay the act is but a moral act such as a Statute or Bond acteth and what need Faith to be a physical Instrument 2. My second Reason is this It is generally concluded that Tota instrumenti causalit as est in usu applicatione It ceaseth to be an Instrument when it ceaseth to be used or acted by the principal cause But faith doth most frequently cease its action and is not used physically when we sleep or wholly mind other things Therefore according to this Doctrine faith should then cease its Instrumentality and consequently either we should all that while be unjustified and unpardoned or else be justified and pardoned some other way and not by faith All which is absurd and easily avoided by discerning faith to be but a Condition of our Justification or a Causa sine quae non 3. If Faith be a physical Instrument then it should justifie from a reason intrinsecal natural and essential to it and not from Gods meer ordination of it to this office by his Word of Promise but that were at least dangerous Doctrine and should not be entertained by them who truly acknowledge that it justifies not as a work much less then as a Physical reception which they call its Instrumentality The consequence of the Major is evident in that nothing can be more intrinsecal and essential to faith this faith then to be what it is viz. a Reception or acceptance of Christ or his Righteousness therefore if it justifie directly as such then it justifieth of its own Nature 4. It is to me a hard saying that God and Faith do the same thing that is Pardon and justifie and yet so they do if it be an Instrument of Justification For eadem est Actio Instrumenti principalis causae viz. quoad determinationem ad hunc effectum ut Aquinas Schibler c. I dare not say or think that Faith doth so properly effectively justifie and pardon us 5. It seems to me needless to feign this Instrumentality because frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora 6. Yea it derogateth from the work for as Scotus saith in 4. dist 45. q. 1. pag. mihi 239. D. Actio sine instrumento est perfectior quà m actio cum instrumento 7. And this Doctrine makes man to be the causa proxima of his own Pardon and Justification For it is man that believes and not God God is the causa prima but man the causa proxima credendi and so of justifying if Faith be an Instrument Or at least man is a cause of his own Pardon and Justification Yea faith being by Divines acknowledged our own Instrument it must needs follow that we justifie and forgive our selves Dr. Amesius saith Bellar. Enervat To. 4. li 6. p. mihi 315. Plurimum refert quia sicut sacramenta quamvis aliquo sâ—nsu possint dici Instrumenta nostra c. proprie tamen sunt Jnstrumenta Dei sic etiam fides quamvis possit vocari Instrumentum Dei quia Deus justificat nos ex fide per fidem proprie tamen est Instrumentum nostrum Deus nos baptizat pascit non nosmet ipsi Nos credimus in Christum non Deus Whether faith may be a moral Instrument I shall enquire when I have answered the next question which is Q 6. If faith were such a Physical Passive or Active Instrument whether that be the formal direct reason of its justifying and whether as it is it do justifie directly and primarily quatenus est apprehensio Christi justitioe vel Justificationis And this is it that I most confidently deny and had rather you would stick to in debate then all the rest for I ground many other things on it I affirm therefore 1. That faith justifieth primarily and directly as the condition on which the free Donor hath bestowed Christ with all his benefits in the Gospel-conveyance 2. And that if it were a meer Physical apprehension it would not justifie no nor do us any good 3. And that the apprehension called the receptivity which is truly its nature is yet but its aptitude to its justifying office and so a remote not the direct proper formal cause These three I will prove in order 1. And for the first it is proved 1. From the Tenor of the justifynâ—g Promise which still assureth Justification on the condition of Believing He that believeth and whosoever believeth and if thou believe do plainly and unquestionably express such a condition upon which we shall be justified and without which we shall not The Antinomians most unreasonably deny this 2. And the nature of Justification makes it unquestioinable for whether you make it a Law-act or an act of Gods own Judgement and Will determining of our state yet nither will admit of any intervening cause especially any act of ours but only a condition 3. Besides Conditions depend on the will of him that bestoweth the Gift and according to his Will they succeed but Instruments more according to their own fitness Now it is known well that Justification is an act of Gods meer free Grace and Will and therefore nothing can further conduce to Gods free act as on our part but by way
reign is part of that faith which justifies Even willingness of his Reign as well as to be pardoned justified and saved from Hell by him or else few among us would perish For I never met with the man that was unwilling of these 3. And then it will easily appear Whether your Doctrine or mine be the more safe 1. Yours hath the many inconveniences already mentioned It maketh man his own justifier or the causa proxima of his own Justification and by his own Act to help God to justifie us for so all instruments do help the principal cause And yet by a self-contradiction it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth and so no vertue or grace Yea I think it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God Many such wayes it seemeth to wrong the Father and the Mediator 2. And it seemeth also to wrong mens souls in point of safety both by drawing them so to wrong God and also by laying grounds to encourage them in presumption For when they are taught that the receiving of Christs righteousness or of Christ for justification or the confident expectation of pardon or resting on Christ for it or a particular perswasion of it c. Is justifying faith and when they find these in themselves as undoubtedly they may will this much or else they cannot presume Is it not easie then to think they are safe when they are not As I said I never yet met with the man that was not willing to be Justified and saved from Hell by Christ and I dare say Really willing and but with few that did not expect it from Christ and trust him for it Now to place Justifying faith only in that which is so common and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made essential to faith as Justifying is strange For knowing that the godly themselves have fowly sinned and that no man can perish that hath Justifying faith how can they choose but presume when they find that which is called Justifying faith undoubtedly in themselves And to tell them it is not sincere or true because they receive not Christ also as King and Prophet and yet that such receiving is no part of justifying faith This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without it self a strange Truth in a signal concomitant and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant sign when he certainly feeleth the thing it self Will not such think they may sin salva fide When as if they were rightly taught that justifying saving faith as such is the receiving of Christ for Saviour and Lord and so a giving up themselves both to be saved and guided by him then they would find that faith in Christ and sincere obedience to Christ have a little neerer relation and then a man might say to such a presumer as I remember Tertullian excellently doth De poenitent Operum pag. mihi 119. Caeterum non leviter in Domixum peccat qui quum amulo ejus Diabolo poenitentiâ renunciasset hoc nomine illum Domino subjecisset rursus â—undem regressusuo erigit exultatione ejus seipsum facit ut denuo malus recuperata praeda sua adversus Dominâ—m gaudeat Nonne quod dicere quoque periculosum est sed ad adificationem proferendum est dâ—abolum Domino praeponit Comparationem enim videtur egisse qui utrumque cognoverit judicato pronunciasse â—um meliorem cujus se rursus esse maluerit c. Sed aiunt quidam satis Deum habere si corde animo suspiciatur licet actu minus fiat itaque se salvo metu Fide peccare Hoc est salva castitate Matrimonia violare salva pietate parenti venenum temperare sic ergo ipsi salva venia in Gehennans detrudentur dum salvo metu peccant Again your Doctrine seemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are justified and shall be saved and how can they know that who know not whether they have faith and how can they know that when they know not what justifying saith is and how can they know what it is when it is by Divines involved in such a cloud and maze of difficulties some placing it in this act and some in that and some in a Passive instrumentality which few understand If any man in the world do For the Habit of faith that cannot be felt or known of it self immediately but by its acts for so it is concluded of all Habits Suarez Metap T. 2. disp 44 § 1. pag 332. and instead of the act we are now set to enquire after the passion and so in the work of examination the business is to enquire how and when we did passively receive righteousness or justification or Christ for these which let him answer for himself that can for I cannot But now on the other side what inconvenience is there in the Doctrine of faith and justification as I deliver it As it is plain and certain saying no more then is generally granted so I think it is safe Do I ascribe any of Christs honour in the work to man No man yet hath dared to charge me with that to my knowledge and no considerate man I believe will do it I conclude that neither faith nor works is the least part of our legal righteousness or of that righteousness which we must plead against the accuser for our justification which is commonly called by Divines the matter of our justification The Law which we have broken cannot be satisfied nor God for the breach of it in the least measure by our faith or obedience nor do they concur as the least degree of that satisfaction But we must turn the Law over wholly to our Surety Only whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the said justification and salvation I say these conditions must needs be performed and that by our selves and who dare deny this and I say that the performance of these conditions is our Evangelical righteousness in reference to that Covenant as Christs satisfaction is our legal Righteousness in reference to that first Covenant or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteousness if we had so obeyed And for them that speak of inherent Righteousness in any other sense viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works rather then as a true conformity to the Law or Covenant of grace I renounce their Doctrine both as contradictory to it self and to the truth and as that which would make the same Law to curse and bless the same man and which would set up the desperate Doctrine of Justification by the works of the Law For if men are righteous in reference to that Law then they may be so far justified by it Nor do I ascribe to works any part of the office or
honour of faith Though that were not so dangerous as to derogate from Christ For I acknowledge faith the only condition of our first Remission and justification and the principal part of the condition of our justification as continued and consummate And if faith be an instrumental cause I do not give that honor from it to works for they are not so Nay I boldly again aver that I give no more to obedience to Christ then Divines ordinarily do that is to be the secondary part of the condition of continued and consummate justification Only I give not so much as others to faith because I dare not ascribe so much to man And yet men make such a noise with the terrible name of Justification by works the Lords own phrase as if I gave more then themselves to man when I give so much less And thus Sir I have according to your advice spent my self as you speak in aiming at that mark which you were pleased to set me And now I shall proceed to the rest of your exceptions My next answer to you was that If works under every notion are excluded as you say they are then repentance is excluded under the notion of a condition or preparative But repentance under that notion is not excluded Therefore not works under every notion To this you reply that Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which what is it but a plain yielding my Minor and so the cause For this is as much as I say If repentance be a work or act of ours and not excluded under the notion of a qualification or as you elsewhere yield a Medium ordinatum and a condition then works are not under every notion excluded And that repentance is not recipient how easily do I yeild to you But do you indeed think that when Paul excludeth the works of the Law that he excludeth them only as Recipient and not as qualifying If so as this answer seems to import seeing you will not have me here distinguish between works of Law and of Gospel or New Covenant then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I do or dare For I aver that Paul excludeth them even as qualifications yea and the very presence of them and that the Jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient To my next you say Whether Paul dispute what is our righteousness or upon what terms it is made ours it doth not much matter But I think it of very great moment they being Questions so very much different both in their sense and importance And whereas you think Paul speaks chiefly of the manner I think he speaks of both but primarily of the quasi materia and of the manner or means thereto but secondarily in reference to that So that I think the chief Question which Paul doth debate was Whether we are Justified by our own works or merits or by Anothers viz. the satisfaction of a surety which yet because it is no way made ours but by believing therefore he so puts the Question whether by works of the Law or by faith and so that he makes them two immediate opposites not granting any tertium I easily yield But of that before To the next you say that I cannot find such a figure for faith Relatively in my sense Answ And I conceive that faith in my sense may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours Doubtless acceptance of an offered Redeemer and all his benefits doth relate as properly to what is accepted viz. by the assent of the understanding initially and by the election and consent of the will consummately as a Physical Passive reception or instrumentality can do And also as it is a condition I make little doubt but it relateth to the thing given on that condition and that the very name of a condition is relative So that in my sense faith relateth to Christ two ways Whereof the former is but its very nature and so its aptitude to its office The later is that proper respect in which it immediately or directly justifieth Yet do I not mean as you seem to do as I gather by your phrase of putting Love and Obedience for Christs Righteousness For I conceive it may be put relatively and yet not strictly loco correlati for the thing related to when I say my hands or teeth feed me I do not put them instead of my Meat and yet I use the words relatively meaning my Meat principally and my teeth secondarily Neither do I mean that it relateth to Christs righteousness only or principally but first to himself And I doubt not but Love to Christ and Obedience to him as Redeemer do relate to him but not so fully clearly and directly express him as related to as Faith Faith being also so comprehensive a grace as to include some others It is a true saying that a poor woman that is marryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love and continued so by duty to her husband But it is more obscure and improper then to say she is made honourable by Marriage or taking such a man to her husband which includes love and implyeth duty and faithfulness as necessarily subsequent I conceive with Judicious Doctor Preston that faith is truly and properly such a consent contract or marriage with Christ Next to your similitude you say that I hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other Actions of sense will as well heal the wounded Christian To which I answer Similitudes run not on all four Thus far I believe that this holds 1. Christ was lift up on the Cross as the brazen Serpent was lift up 2. He was lift up for a cure to sin-stung souls as the brazen Serpent for the stung bodies 3. That as every one that looked on the Serpent was cured an easie condition so every one that believeth Christ to be the appointed Redeemer and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered and so trusteth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life 4. That as the cure of their bodies came not from any natural reason drawn from the eye or from any natural excellency or efficacy of seeing above hearing or feeling but meerly from the free will and pleasure of God who ordained that looking should be the condition of their cure So all those Acts usually comprized or implyed in the word believing which justifie do it not from any natural excellency efficacy or instrumentality but meerly from the good pleasure of the Law-giver And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith that is its very formal essence must not be given as the proper direct cause of its Justifying But that is its conditionality from the free appointment of God But on the other side 1. It was only one Act of one sense which was the condition of their cure but you will not say I believe that it is only one act of one faculty which justifieth however I will not 2. It
following exercitation And what think you is the happy Light that deserveth all this ostentation Why 1. On the Negative we are satisfied that he means not What fides qua fides can do And then we are secure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adversaries cause 2. The Light then is all but this That qua here is not taken Reduplicative but specificative when by the particle qua or quatenus there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition as when we say man as a reasonable creature feeleth In this latter sence saith he I believe the particle qua or quatenus is taken when we do not say faith as faith but faith as Justifying viz. as a Grace designed to this act or operation of Justifying looks on Christ as Saviour Answ This Chapter was worth the observing For if this be the Basis of all the Exercitation and the Light that Generated all the rest the dispatch of this may serve for all It seems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Distinctions in the end of Castaneus and meeing with Reduplicative and specificative admired the distinction as some rare Discovery and this pregnant fruitful Distinction begot a Volume before it was half understood it self Had he but read the large Schemes for explaining Qua or Quatenus in others its like it would have either begot a larger Volume or by informing or confounding him have prevented this First he disowneth the Reduplicative sence and then owneth the specificative But 1. He seeth not it seems the insufficiency of this distinction 2. Nor the meaning of it 3. Nor could well apply it to the subject in hand Of the first I shall speak anon The second appeareth by his Description his Instance and his Application He describeth it to be When there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition 1. And why may it not be added also to the Predicate as well as it may Reduplicatively as Motus est actus mobilis quatenus est mobile 2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not serve for your specificative Quatenus The instance you give is as when we say man as a Reasonable creature faileth This was but an unhappy Translation of Homo quatenus animal est sensibilis and it s true in the Latine how false soever in the English For the Application 1. You say you Believe its thus taken As if you did but Believe and not know your own meaning in the Basis of your Exercitation 2. Your Specificative Quatenus is Causal or signifieth the Reason of the thing either of the Predication or the thing predicate But so cannot your Basis hold good For faith doth not look on Christ as a Saviour as you please Metaphorically to speak because it Justifieth for its Nature is before the effect and therefore cannot the effect be given as the cause of it unless it were the final cause of which anon Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common use signifieth the proper reason of the thing or predication and is appliable only to that which is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to the terms sometimes there is a Reduplication of the same term sometimes that reduplication is of the matter but in other terms as in a definition or synominal words or it is implyed sometimes it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Reduplicate sometimes it is without a Reduplication And then sometimes it giveth a Reason from an Essential Part sometime from the Generical Nature sometime from the Specifick Nature sometime from an Accident and those are divers sometime from a Quality sometime from Quantity sometime from Relation and that is multifarious If we should run into all the sences of this Term which Mr. W. doth lap up in the word Specificative the words might exceed the profit And it s to be noted that usually the term is respective as to some other thing excluded which is contradistinct so we give sometimes a more Remote and General sometime a neerer and more special Reason by Qua or quatenus As if you mix a purging Electuary in your Drink I say that Purgeth quatenus medicated which is to exclude the Drink from being Purgative If I speak of the Electuary I may say that it purgeth quatenus Diagridiate to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative But if I speak of the Diagridium I may say that it Purgeth as having an Elective faculty c. to exclude other Reasons of its operation Now for the opening of the matter in hand let us try certain Propositions that may be supposed to be laid down concerning Faith 1. Faith as faith justifieth This is True taken laxely for the excluding of faith as a meer Physical act or meritorious c. but it is false strictly taken as signifying the formal or nearest reason So 2. Fades in Christum qua talis Justificat that is haec sides in specie is true taken Laxely and materially to exclude all other Faith q. d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul but faith in Christ as such that is the matter deputed to be the condition of Justification But it s false taken strictly deratione formali 3. So This faith as it is an Apprehension or Acceptance of Christ justifieth It s true Materialiter Remotius Laxly but false formaliter stricte de ratione proxima For this is the same in other terms with the second So 4. Faith justifieth as an Instrumental effitient cause of our Justification It s false in every tolerable sence So 5. Faith justifieth as an Instrument of receiving Christ It s true 1. taking the word Instrument Metaphorically and meaning only the Nature of this faith which is to Believe in and Accept Christ 2. and taking Quatenus remotely laxely and materially only q.d. Faith is the Elected matter of the condition or is chosen to be the condition of Justification for this Aptitude as or because it is a Reception or Acceptance of Christ But it s false 1. Taking an Instrument strictly and Logically 2. and speaking de ratione formali So 6. Faith as a believing in Christs sacrifice justifieth It s true Laxly Materialiter partialiter that is This act of faith is part of the matter of the condition But it s false formaliter de ratione proxima So 7. Faith justifieth only as it is a Believing in Christs sacrifice or Righteousness It s false both de materia de ratione formali So 8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in or Accepting Christ as our Ransom Here is darkness and either nonsence or false doctrine 1. As Justifying signifieth either as a justifying efficient cause 2. Or as the merit or matter of our Righteousness 3. Or as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness of which Justification is a consequent and final cause In the first sense it is every way
neither a continued Act nor renewed or repeated neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed are any conditions of our Justification in this Life This may seem a heavy charge but it is a plain Truth For that Justification which we receive upon our first believing hath only that first Act of faith for its condition or as others speak its Instrumental cause We are not justified to day by that act of Faith which we shall perform to Morrow or a Twelvemonth hence so that according to your opinion and all that go that way it is only one the first Act of Faith which justifies and all the following Acts through our whole life do no more to our Justification then the works of the Law do I would many other Divines that go your way for it is common as to the dispatching of Justification by one Act would think of this foul absurdity You may add this also to what is said before against your opinion herein Where then is the Old Doctrine of the just living by faith as to Justification I may bear with these men or at least need not wonder for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Justification as continued when they will not admit faith it self Who speaks more against faith they or I When I admit as necessary that first act and maintain the necessity of repeated acts to our continued Justification and they exclude all save one Instantaneous act 2. And what reason can any man give why Repentance should be admitted as a condition of our first Justification and yet be no condition of the continuance of it or what proof is there from Scripture for this I shall prove that the continuance of our Justification hath more to its condition then the beginning though learned men I know gain-say it but surely less it cannot have 4. But why do you say only of Repentance that it is the condition of Remision and of forgiving others that it is the condition of entring into life Have you not Christs express words that forgiving others is a condition of our Remission if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will forgive you but if you forgive not men c. Nay is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveness I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorisms Wash you make you clean put away the evil of your doings c. then if your sins be as crimson c. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy And I would have it considered if Remission and Justification be either the same or so neer as all Divines make them whether it be possible that forgiving others and Reformat on or new Obedience should be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Act and not of Justification Doubtless the general Justification must be continued as well as the general pardon and a particular Justification I think after particular sins is needfull as well as particular pardon or if the name should be thought improper the thing cannot be denyed Judicious Ball saith as much as I yet men were not so angry with him Treat of Covenant pag. 20.21 A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final Absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and Eternal bliss And pag. 21. This walking in the light as he is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Christs Righteousness or actual participants of his propitiation which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification taken for Remission of sins or actual approbation with God And pag. 73. Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that faith which justifieth So he 5. How will you ever prove that our Entering into Life and our continued remission or Justification have not the same conditions that those Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other Indeed the men that are for Faiths Instrumentality say somewhat to it but what you can say I know not And for them if they could prove Faith Instrumental in justifying co nomine because it receives Christ by whom we are justified they would also prove it the Instrument of Glorifying because it Receives Christ by and for whom we are saved and Glorified And so if the Instrumentality of Faith must exclude obedience from justifying us it must also exclude it from Glorifying us And I marvel that they are so loose and easie in admitting obedience into the work of saving and yet not of continuing or consummating Justification when the Apostle saith By Grace ye are saved by Faith and so excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Justification in particular 6. But lastly I take what you grant me in this Section and profess that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cause that I stand upon For as you grant 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant 2. That Repentance also is the condition of Remission which is near the same with Justification 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification which hath the same conditions with final and continued Justification 4. So you seem to yield all this as to our full justification at Judgement For you purposely limit the conditionality of meer faith to our Justification in this Life But if you yield all that I desire as you do if I understand you as to the last justification at Judgement then we are not much differing in this business For I take as Mr. Burges doth Lect. of Justification 29 our compleatest and most perfect Justification to be that at Judgement Yea and that it is so eminent and considerable here that I think all other Justification is so called chiefly as referring to that And me thinks above all men you should say so too who make Justification to lie only in sententiâ— judicis and not in sententia Legis And so all that go your way as many that I meet with do If then we are justified at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement by obedience as the secondary part of the condition of the Covenant which you seem to yield 1. We are agreed in the main 2. I cannot yet believe that our Justification at that Bar hath one condition and our Justification in Law or in this Life as continued another He that dyeth justified was so justified in the hour of dying on the same conditions as he must be at Judgement For 1. There are no conditions to be performed after death 2. Sententia Legis sententia judicis do justifie on the same terms Add to all
cause as they think some other Act is Paul doth not exclude that which he makes necessary Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace is none of the works that Paul sets faith against But other acts of faith in Christ do not make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one act which you will choose E. g. Believing in Christ as King and Teacher any more then believing in him as a Ransom therefore they are not the works that Pauls sets faith against The Major is proved from the Description of the excluded works Rom. 4.4 The Minor is evident Argument 6. All acts of Faith in Christ as our Justifier are such as are opposed to works by Paul and are none of the works which faith is opposed to But they are more then one or two that are Acts of faith in Christ as Justifier Ergo. The Major I think will be granted the Minor is plain For 1. Christ justifieth us meritoriously as a Sacrifice 2. And as Obeying and fulfilling the Law 3. As the complement of his satisfaction and the entrance upon his following execution his Resurrection justifieth us 4. As the Heavenly Priest at Gods right hand he justifieth us by his Intercession 5 As King and Head he justifieth us by his Covenant or Law of Grace 6. As King and Judge he justifieth us by sentence 7. As Prophet he teacheth us the Doctrine of Justification and how to attain to Justification by sentence So that at least none of these are the excluded works Argum. 7. If the whole Essence of Christian faith be opposed to works and so be none of the opposed works in the matter of Salvation then it s so also in the matter of Justification But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Minor is confessed by my Opponents The consequence of the Major I prove 1. Because Salvation is as free as Justification and no more of works which Paul excludeth 2. Salvation comprehendeth Justification and Glorification hath the same conditions as final Justification at Judgement it being part of Justification to adjudge that Glory 3. The express Scripture excludes works as much from Salvation as from Justification Eph. 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life Many such places are obvious to any diligent Reader For the Minor also read 1 Cor. 15.1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Argum. 8. If no man can name any one Act of faith that is opposed to all the rest as works or opposed to works when the rest are not then no such thing it to be asserted But no man can name the Act that is thus opposed alone to works 1. It is not yet done that I know of We cannot get them to tell us what Act it is 2. And if they do others will make as good a claim to the Prerogative Argum. 9. They that oppose us and affirm the Question do feign God to have a strange partiality to one Act of faith above all the rest without any reason or aptitude in that act to be so exalted But this is not to be feigned and proved it cannot be that God should annex our Justification to the Belief in Christ as a sacrifice only and to oppose this to belief in him as Rising Interceding Teaching Promising or Judging is a fiction contrary to Scripture Examine any Text you please and see whether it will run well with such an Exposition Rom. 4.4 5. Now to him that worketh i. e. Believeth in Christ as Teacher Judge Intercessor is the reward not reckoned of Grace but of Debt But to him that worketh not that is believeth not on Christ as King and Teacher c. but Believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly an act of his Kingly office c. Doth this run well I will not trouble you with so unsavoury a Paraphrase upon the like Scriptures you may try at pleasure on Rom. 3. 4. and Gal. 3. Eph. 2. Phil. 3. or any such Text. Argument 10. If the Doctrine of the Opponents holding the Affirmative were true then no man can tell whether he be a condemned Legalist or not yea more if it be not faith in Christ as such containing the whole Essence by which we are justified as opposed to works or which is none of the excluded works then no man can tell but he is a condemned Legalist But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Reason of the Consequence is because no man is able to tell you which is the sole justifying Act or which are the only acts if it be not faith Essentially that is it for among all the acts before mentioned if a man mistake and think one other E. g. faith in Christs Resurrection in Christ as King Judge Teacher c. is it by which he must be justified then he falls upon Justification by Works and so falls short of Grace for if it be of Works then it is no more of Grace else Works were no Works And so no man can tell but he destroyeth Grace and expecteth Justification by works much less can weak Christians tell I never yet saw or heard from any Divine a just Nomination with proof of the one Justifying act or a just Enumeration of the many acts if all must not be taken in that are Essential Some say Affiance is the only act but as that 's confuted by the most that take in Assent also so there are many and many acts of Affiance in Christ that are necessary and they should tell us which of these it is Object And do you think that we can any better tell when we have all that are Essential Or doth every weak Christian believe all the twenty Articles that you mentioned at first Answ 1. We can better know what is Revealed then what 's unrevealed The Scripture tells us what faith in Christ is but not what one or two acts do Justifie excluding all other as Works Divines have often defined Faith but I know not that any hath defined any such one act as thus exalted above the rest of the Essence of Faith If we covld not tell what is essential to Faith we could not tell what faith is 2. The twenty Objects of Assent before mentioned are not all Articles or material Objects the second is the formal Object And of the rest unless the Fifth Believing that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin may be excepted which I dare not affirm
l. 4. r. or p. 183. l. 19. r. casuals p. 186. l. 25. r. sensu p. 197. l. 29. r. Potentia p. 208. l. 8. r. Porret l. 31. r. Passive in p. 210 l 24. r. mediante p. 212. l. 12. r. except p. 233. l. 7. r. in the. p. 243. l. 32. blot out till p. 252. l. 13. r. veritatus p. 257. l. 14. r. exalted p. 271. l. 10. r. righteous p. 286. l. 17. r. be l. 24. r. the. p. 290. l. 1. r. marks p. 294. l. 22. and l. 26. and p. 265. l. 23. and 26. for quae r. qud p. 299. l. 1. r. unproved p. 314. l. 36. r. cull p. 319. â— 14. r. that is p. 320. l. 14 r. fur p. 326 l. 31. r. fruit p. 354. l. ult r. praemotione p 360. l. 27. r. God p. 361. l. 32. r. thoughâ— p 386. l. 27. r. Is it not p. 387. l. 32. r. sanctification p. 390. l. 22. r. morally p. 398. l. 15. r. probable l. 23 r. Impenitency Quest Whether we are Justified by Beliveing in Jesus Christ as our King and Teacher as well as by believing in his Blood Aff. Though I have oft spoken to this Question in the ears of the world as taking it to be of very great Consequence yet upon the Invitation of this opportunity I shall once again attempt a brief Discussion of it and the rather because the Answers of a Reverend Brother Mr. Blake to my former Arguments and his Arguments for the contrary opinion may wrong the Truth and the souls of men if their Fallacy be not manifested by a Reply And I shall first speak somewhat of the Importance of the Question and then of the sense of it and then endeavour a clear Resolution and the Confirmation thereof and the Confutation of the contrary conceits And for the first I shall give you my thoughts of it in these two Propositions Proposition 1. The difference amongst Protestants about this Question is not of so great moment that either party must Eonomine be judged to deny the Essentials or Fundamentals of the faith and so to be of a different Religion from the other or to fall short of Salvation I lay down this Proposition first Because of the Papists who stand looking upon all our differences with a mind too like the mind of the Devil rejoycing in them and endeavouring to encrease them and to make them seem greater in the eyes of the world than indeed they are that so they may make use of them for the reproaching of our Profession and take an advantage from them to make the truth and Servants of Christ become odious unto others Secondly And I do it also for the sake of some even too many among our selves that speak of controversies as they are concerned in them or as the party to whom they joyn doth speak of them or as they appear to them in the dark or at a distance or upon a hasty superficial search but have not the skil nor some of them the will to open the true state of a Controversie and make the difference appear no wider then indeed it is To the proving of the Proposition it must be observed First that the Affirmers do yield that it is not the Doctrine or Government of Christ but his blood that is the Ransome for one sins and his Righteousness that is the sole Meritorious Cause of our Justification and that believing in Christ as Prophet and King is not a proper Instrument of our Justification and that Christ as a Ransome for us and a deserver of our Justification is the formal Object of that other act which accordingly believeth in him and not of this act of believing in him as Prophet and King On the other side it is granted by them that are for the Negative that it is our duty to believe in Christ as a Prophet and King and that it is of necessity to salvation yet to Justification it self For they yield that it is the Fides quae Justificat the faith by whch we are Justified but not quâ— Justificat or that it Justifieth not quà talis as such They yield also that it is a Condition of Justification for so they confess that Repentance it self is but they only say that it is not the Instrument of Justification as they think the other act is So that the difference is here They yield all that we affirm if I can understand them but they affirm somewhat more themselves which we do not yield They grant that believing in Christ as our Teacher and Lord is a Condition of our Justification and the â—ides quae Justificat which is all that I desire But then they add that the Belief in Christs blood and Righteousness is the Instrument of our Justification and that it justifieth quâ— talis which we utterly deny if the words be properly taken and Tropes should not upon choice be made the terms of our Question while there are plainer to be had So that by this time its easie to see that neither of these opinions are such as must unchurch or damn us or make us Hereticks First We that are for the Affirmative are out of that danger for we hold no more positively then is yielded us by the other All that they can charge us with is this Negative that believing in Christs blood doth not properly Justifie as an Instrument that is as an efficient Instrumental Cause of our Justification nor yet quâ— talis And I think they will not lay our salvation on the Affirmative when they consider what we yield of which more anon And on the other side we are far from passing any damning sentence on them that are for the said Instrumentality especially as we perceive it commonly held Let no Papist therefore insult over us and say we are disagreed in our fundamentals unless he be resolved to do it in design against the light of his own conscience I the rather premise this Caution because I hear that the Papists do mutter thus against us already to silly people that cannot see their deceit They say Is not the death of Christ a fundamental and yet some say that he died for All and some say he died only for the Elect some say he paid the Idem and some but the Tantundem but they tell not the people the true state of the Controversie and wherein we are agreed or that they differ as much about the extent of the death of Christ among themselves without such a charge Christ is the Foundation but yet whether his hair were cut or not or whether he were thirty three or thirty five or fifty years old when he died or whether he was buried in a Garden or in a Sepulchre of stone these are not the foundation So much to the first Proposition for narrowing our difference Proposition 2. Though this controversie be not of such Moment as is denied yet is it of great weight and the Consequents of the Errors of one party
as that any acts of our own must interpose but they are in eodem instanti and differ only in order of nature In sum we prove a promise of pardon to all that receive Christ himself and believe in him If any will affirm the necessity of any other act before we can be justified it is incumbent on them to prove it This was the substance of my Answer to which the Reverend Bishop said no more whether satisfied or not I cannot tell But I thought meet to recite his Judgement both because it comes so neer the matter and because I know not of any other that saith the same or so much of seeming strength against us Against all these seven particular Opinions I am now to defend the Thesis when I have first told you in certain distinctions and propositions how much I grant and what I deny which I shall in short dispatch And here I need but to rehearse what I have said already to Mr. Blake pag. 3.4 or to give you some short account of my thoughts to the same purpose First We must not confound Justification by Constitution or Guift and justification by the Sentence of the Judge and the Execution of that sentence which are three distinct things Secondly We must not confound Justification with the assurance or feeling of Justification Thirdly We must distinguish between our first Justification from a state of sin and our daily Justification from particular Acts of sin Fourthly Between that which is necessary on Christs part and that which is necessary on our part to our Justification Fifthly Between Christs purchasing our Justification and his actual justifying of us Sixthly Between these two senses of the phrase justified by Fatih viz. as by an efficient Cause or as a meer Condition Seventhly Between the Causality of faith in the Physical effects of sanctification on the soul and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promise in our Justification Proposition 1. Ex parte Christi We easily grant that it is not his Teaching or Ruling us but his Ransome and Obedience that are the Meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation Proposition 2. Therefore if Christ did justifie us per modum objecti aprehensi in the nearest sense as the Belief of sacred Truths doth make a Qualitative impression on the soul in our Sanctification and the exciting and acting of our Graces then I should confess that it is only that Act of Faith which is the apprehension of this Object that doth help us directly to the benefit of the Object Proposition 3. But it is not so For the Object justifieth us causally by way of Merit and Moral procurement and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promise conveying to us Justification and partly Justification conveyed by that Promise not to speak now of other benefits and the Promise conveyeth Justification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift or a Pardon to a Traytor Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver and the Promise or deed of Gift being the Immediate Instrumental efficient Cause of it as it is signum voluntatis Donatoris our Belief or Apprehension qua talis cannot justifie us nor have any nearer or higher interest in our Justification then to be the Condition of it as it is a free Gift And therefore the Condition must be judged of by the will of the Donor expressed in his Promise and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeableness to the Object in this or that respect Proposition 4. Yea Even ex parte Christi though he Merit Justification by his Ransome and Obedience yet he actually justifieth us as King of his Church and that in regard of all the three sorts or parts of Justification He giveth it constitutively by his Promise as Lord and Legislator and Benefactor on these terms of Grace He sentenceth us Just as our Judg and he executeth that sentence as a Just Judge governing according to his Laws So that if Faith did justifie ex natura rei which they call its Instrumentality I see not yet but that the apprehension of Christ as Lord and Judge must justifie us because the Object apprehended doth thus justifie us Proposition 5. I easily grant that in our Sanctification or the exciting and exercise of our Graces the case standeth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Justification This Interest of the Act must be judged of by the Object apprehended For it is not the Belief of a Promise that feareth us but of a Threatning nor the Belief of a Threatning that Comforteth us but of a Promise For here the Object worketh immediately on our minds per modum objecti apprehensi But in Justification it is not so where God is the Agent as a Donor and there can be nothing done by us but in order to make us fit Subjects and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as such but Relative by a Fundamentum which is without us in the Gospel and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition without which it will not be done Proposition 6. Accordingly I easily grant that the Sense or Assurance of Justification in our Consciences is wrought by the Object as an Object Because this Assurance is a part of our Sanctification But that Object is not directly Christs Ransome but the Promise through his blood and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promise Proposition 7. I easily grant that Faith in Christ as Lord or Teacher of the Church is not the Instrumental efficient Cause of our Justification They need not therefore contend against me in this But withall I say that faith in his Priest-hood is not the Instrumental efficient Cause neither though I allow it to have a nearer Physical Relation to the Ransome which meriteth our Justification Proposition 8. Though there is a greater shew of Reason to assert the Interest of the single Belief in Christs Priest-hood for a particular Pardon then for our first general Pardon yet indeed it is but a shew even there also For it is not only the applying our selves to his blood or Ransome but it is also the applying our selves to whole Christ to make up the whole breach that is the Condition of our particular Pardon so far as a particular Act of saith is a Condition which though it be not a Receiving Christ for Union with him as we did in the beginning yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et secundum quid and a renewed Consent to his whole Office and adhesion to him as our special remedy for recovery from that fall by freeing us both from the guilt and stain of Sin Proposition 9. It is undoubtedly the duty of every Sinner in the sense of his guilt and misery to fly to the Ransome of Christs blood and the Merit of his Obedience as the satisfaction to Gods Justice and the Purchaser of our Justification And he that doth not this how willing soever he may seem
by sentence in Judgement Thirdly The Execution of the former by actuall Liberation from penalty The last is oftener call'd Remission of sin the two former are more properly called Justification First As for the first of these I argue this If Christ do as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits Enact the Law of Grace or promise by which we are justified then doth he as King and Benefactor justifie us by Condonation or constitution For the Promise is his Instrument by which he doth it But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent As the Father by Right of Creation was Rector of the new created world and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by Right of Redemption is Rector of the new Redeemed world and so made the Law of Grace that gives Christ and Life to all that will believe As it is a Law it is the Act of a King As it is a Deed of Gift it is the Act of a Benefactor as it is founded in his death and supposeth his satisfaction thereby it is called his Testament In no respect is it part of his satisfaction or Humiliation or Merit itself but the true effect of it So that Christs merit is the Remote Moral Cause of our Justification but his granting of this promise or Act of Grace is the true natural efficient Instrumental Cause of our Justification even the Immediate Cause Secondly Justification by sentence of Judgement is undeniably by Christ as King For God hath appointed to Judge the World by him Act. 17.31 and hath committed all Judgement to him John 5.22 And therefore as Judge he doth justifie and Condemn This is not therefore any part of his Humiliation or Obedience by which he ransometh sinners from the Curse To deny these things is to deny Principles in Politicks Thirdly And then for the Execution of the sentence by actual liberation there is as little room for a doubt this being after both the former and the act of a Rector and not of a Surety in the form of a servant So that it is apparent that as the Merit of our Justification is by Christ in his Humiliation So our actual Justification in all three senses is by Christ as King And therefore Faith in order to Justification must accordingly respect him Secondly As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justifie but yet mediately he doth and it is but mediately that he justifieth by his Merits The Gospel is a Law that must be promulgate and expounded and a Doctrine that must be taught and pressed on sinners till they receive it and believe that they may be justified And this Christ doth as the Teacher of his Church And Faith must accordingly respect him Thirdly The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was part of his exaltation by Power and Conquest and not of his Humiliation and yet we are justified by his Resurrection as that which both shewed the perfection of his satisfaction by which he entred upon that state of Glory in which he was to apply the benefits Fourthly The Intercession of Christ is a part of his office as he is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck but it is no part of his Humiliation or Ransome And yet we are justified by his Intercession And therefore Faith must respct it for Justification Let us now hear what The Scripture saith in these cases Mattthew 9.6 But that you may know that the Son of man hath Power on earth to forgive sins c. Here it is plainly made an Act of Power and not of Humiliation to forgive sins Mat. 11.27 28 29. All things are delivered unto me of my Father c. Come to me all ye that are weary c. so Mat. 28.18 19. compared with Mark 16.15 16. shew that it is an act of Christ exalted or in Power to pardon or grant the promise of Grace John 1.12 To give power to men to become the Sons of God must be an act of Power John 5.22 23 24. it is express of the sentence Acts 5.31 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins He forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour Act. 10.42 43. he is preached as the Judge of quick and dead and so made the Object of the faith by which we have Remission of sins Rom. 4.25 Who was delivered for our offences and raised for our justification And this Resurrection as is said was part of his Exaltation And the Apostle thence concludes as is aforesaid that this is the faith that is Imputed to us for Righteousness If we believe in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead vers 26. Rom. 8.33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect 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 Here God and the Resurrection and Session at Gods right hand and the intercession of Christ are all made the grounds or causes of our Justification and not only Christs death Yea it is exprest by it is Christ that died yea rather that is risen c. 1 Cor. 15.1 2.3 4. The faith by which Paul tells them they were saved had Christs Resurrection for its object as well as his dying for our sins Phil. 3.8.9 10. Pauls way of Justification was first to win Christ and be found in him and so to have a Righteousness of God by faith in Christ whole Christ and not that of the Law that he might know the power of his Resurrection c. The true Nature of this faith is described 1 Pet. 1.21 Who by him do believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him Glory that your Faith and Hope may be in God 1 Pet. 3.21 The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth now also save us by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who is gone into Heaven and is on the right hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject to him It is certain that the salvation of Baptism consisteth very much in Remission of sin or Justification In a word it is most evident in Scripture that merit and satisfaction are but the moral remote preparatory Causes of our Justification though exceeding eminent and must be the daily study and everlasting praise of the Saints and that the perfecting nearer efficient causes were by other acts of Christ and that all concurred to accomplish this work And therefore even ex parte Christi the work is done by his several acts though merited by him in his humiliation only And therefore it is past doubt on their own principles that faith must respect all in order to our Justification And the faith by which we are justified must be that of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 that believed with all
his flesh Ephe. 5.23 24 25 30. Sixthly We are to do it as in remembrance of his death so also in expectation of his comming which will be in Kingly Glory when he will drink with us the fruit of the Vine new in the Kingdome of his Father Object But Christ doth not pardon sin in all these respects Answ First But in the Sacrament he is represented to be believed in entirely in all these respects Secondly And he pardoneth as King though he merit it as a sacrifice And as his Sacrifice and Merit are the cause of all that following so therefore it is specially represented in the Sacrament not excluding but including the rest Thirdly Believing in Christ as King and Prophet even as his offices respect his Honor and our sanctity may be as truly the condition of our Justification as believing in his blood Mr. Blake As the spirit of God guides faith so it must go to God for propitiation and â—â—tonement But the Holy Ghost guides faith to go the blood of Christ for attonement Rom. 3.25 5.9 Eph. 1.7 1 John 1.7 Reply Concedo totum The conclusion can be but this therefore faith must go to the blood of Christ for attonement Who ever questioned this I But your Thesis which you set at the Head of your Arguments was Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which is little kin to any of your Arguments But in the explication you have here at last the term Only and therefore I may take that to be supposed in the Argument But then with that Addition I deny your Minor The texts mentioned say nothing to prove it Rom. 3.25 hath no only in it nor any thing exclusive of the other acts of Christ And if it had yet it would not follow that all other acts of our faith were excluded As his blood is the meritorious cause and so the foundation of all the benefits and so all the Applying Causes are supposed in the mention of it and not excluded so are all other acts of our faith in the mention of that act Rom. 5.9 saith not that we are justified only by his blood Nâ—r is it any adding to the Scripture to add more unless you can prove that these texts are the whole Scripture or that the other Scriptures add no more Ephe. 1 7. and 1 John 1.7 do neither of them exclude either the other acts of Christ or other acts of faith Nay John seems to make somewhat else the condition on our part then the belief in that blood only when he saith there If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Or if you think this if denoteth but a sign yet other texts will plainly prove more To conclude If I were to go only to the blood of Christ for atonement yet it would not follow that going to that blood only for it is the only act of Faith on which Justification is promised or given me in the Gospel as is before declared Mr. Blake You demand Will you exclude his Obedience Resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvell at the question If I exclude these I exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in Obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 his Resurrection was his freedom from the bands of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His Intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but by merit He presents his blood as the high Priest in the Holy of Holies Repl. It was the thing I had to do to prove that Rom. 3.24 and those other texts are not exclusive of all but his blood and that the word Only is no more meant then it is expressed in them And now you grant it me And needs must do it while Scripture tells us that by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Rom. 5.19 and that he is Risen for our Justification Rom. 4 â—5 and that Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ver 24. and It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh Intercession for us Rom. 8 33 34. he that believeth all these texts will not add only to the first at least if he understand them for they do not contradict each other Well! but you marvell at my question I am glad of that Are we so well agreed that you marvell at my supposition of this difference To satisfie you my question implyed this Argument If the Resurrection Intercession c. be not in those texts excluded nor faith in them then we may not add only to interpret them but c. Ergo. But let us hear the reasons of your marveling First As to Obedience you say His shedding of blood was in Obedience Answer But though all blood-shed was in Obedience yet all Obedience was not by blood-shed nor suffering neither And the text Rom. 5.19 seems to speak of Obedience as Obedience and not only as in blood shed Secondly You say His Resurrection was his freedom c. Ans But Suffering is one thing and freedom from suffering is another thing I herefore faith to our justification must eye Christs conquest and freedom from death as well as his death it self Moreover Resurrection was an act of Power and his Entrance on his Kingdom and not a meer act of Priesthood Nor will you ever prove that faith to Justification must only look at the Resurrection as connoting the death from which he riseth Thirdly You say His Intercession is founded on his blood c. Answer So is his Kingdom and Lordship Rom. 14 9. Mat. 28.18 Phil. 2.9 10. It seems then faith in order to Justification must not only look at Christs blood but that which is founded on it His Government in Legislation Judgement Execution is all founded in his blood c. because he hath drank of the brook in the way therefore did he lift up the Head Psalme 110.7 You add He Interceeds by Merit Answer Not by new purchasing Merit but by the virtue of his former Merit and the collation of the effects of it from the Father And so he Reigneth and Governeth both by virtue of former Merit and for the applying that Merit and attaining of its Ends. Whereas therefore you say If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood It is a weighty Answer And the like you may say also of his Kingly and Prophetical office The operation of them are so woven and twisted together by infinite wisdom that all do harmoniously concur to the attainment of the ends of each one and if you lay by one you lay by all you exclude Christs blood as to the end of Justification if you include not his Kingly and Prophetical
come nearer our use of the word when they expound it by Moderatio Circumscriptio determinatio limitatio In Naturals the word Condition is oft used pro ratione formali per quam alicujus disciplina subjectum adaquatuÌ„ constitui solet As e. g. Physicus considerat corpus cum conditions mobilitatis Geometer considerat quantitatem cum conditions continuitatis Arithmaticus cum conditions disjunctionis Modicus considerat humanuÌ„ corpus cum conditions fâ—iâ— quatenus agretare sanari potest Sometimes also any quality or action which is sine qua non to an effect or event is in meer Naturals called a Condition as the dryness of the wood and the approximation of it to the fire c. are conditions of its burning the non-impedition of a more powerful Agent is a Condition of the efficacious action of every lower cause c. Many other acceptions of the word in Physicks by Zabarel Claudius Alberius and others you may see in Goclenii Lexic Philosoph in nom conditio But we are not in a Physical but a moral discourse and therfore must be understood according to the subject matter It is therfore a Civil or Legal Condition that we have to enquire after and must fetch our descriptions from Lawyers and not from Physicks and therefore it is but deceitful equivocation in some Opponents to fetch their opposition from Physical instances The Lawyers give us divers Definitions of Condition but for the most part they come all to one in sense Some say conditio est Lex adposita hominum actionibus eas suspendens Prat. Conditio say others est modus qui suspendit actum donec co existente confirmetur Vult in Instit de haere instit § 3. n. 6. Accursus faith Conditio est suspensio cujus de futuro effectus vel confirmatio pendet Bart. Conditio est futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditar Cuiacius Conditio est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit These are of conditions de futuro But those that are de praesenti vel de praeterito suspend not the obligation unless as they are yet futurae quoad cognitionem though not quoad esse and so the knowledge of a Right may be suspended They are commonly divided into Casuaeles Potestativas mixtas The moral operation of Conditions as such is not in causing the effect when performed but in suspending the effect till performed The reason of the appointing of them for such suspensions is various sometime it s because the person Giving promising or otherwise constituting the condition is uncertain of the event of the performance and would not have the effect come to pass without it But that 's not alwaies sometime though he might be sure of the event of performance yet if he that is to perform the Condition be uncertain it may make way for this constitution It is therefore a vain Plea of them that say God appointeth no conditions of his Promises because the event is not to him uncertain Saith Mat. Martin in nom Cond Defimri solet Dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto futuro ei opposito Sic sane apud homines quo futura non norunt sed Deus jub certis conditionibus etiam nobiscum agit at omnium eventuum ipse gnaâ—us pro infinita sua sap entia qua praevidet quid occur urum nobis quid nos amplexuri vel declinaturâ— simâ—s Confer Deut. 28 29 30 31. 32. Capitobus Commonly the reason of appointing Conditions is the desireabâ—ness of the thing to be performed conjoyned with some backwardness or possibility of backwardness in the person that is to perform it and therefore he is drawn on by the promise of that which he is more willing to receive But many other reasons there may be The first cause of the Condition is the Requirer whether he be Testator Donor Stipulator Legislator c. And so the Condition of the Law or Covenant of Grace is first Gods condition as the Imposer Secondly And its the condition of each Subject as obliged to perform it Thirdly And the condition of each professing Christian as having Promised the performance Fourthly And the condition of true Christians only as actual Performers of it The condition of the Gospel hath several respects according to the various respects of the Law that doth impose it It s the Condition of a free Gift for the Gospel is a free Gift of Christ and Life It is the Condition of a Promise because much of the Gospel benefits are future It is the Condition of a Testament because Christ dying did leave this to the Church as his last Will and it was confirmed by the death of the Testator It is the Condition of a premiant Law and Act of Grace and oblivion because God made it as Legislator and Rector of the world in order to the conducting of his people to their happines It is the condition of a Minatory Law in that it is a duty commanded on pain of death and for the avoiding of that death Fourthly The preposition by in our present question may signifie either the use and Interest of any Medium in General or else of a true cause constitutive or efficient So much of the terms Proposition 1. Since Adams fall it is impossible for man to be justified by a perfect sinless Obedience of his own except Christ only and consequently impossible for him to be justified by the Law considered in that form and tenor as it was given to Adam for all men are sinners and that Law will ustifie no sinner Proposition 2. By the works of the Mosaical Law no man can be justified And therefore the Jews seek Righteousness where it is not to be found while they think that pardon of sin and acceptance with God are to be obtained by the bare works of that Law while they overlook or reject Christ who is the end of that Law for righteousness to every Believer Specially now that Law is Abrogated or ceased it were a double error to expect Justification by its works Proposition 3. Much less can they be justified by the foresaid Law who in stead of fulfilling it do but falsely imagine that they fulfill it Proposition 4. No man can be justified by works properly meritorious because no man hath any such at all nor may we once imagine that we have any such works as Paul speaks of and the Jews thought they had which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4.4 much less that we are justified by such even Gospel works and faith it self do not justifie on this account and a conceit that they are thus meritorious would but turn them into condemning sins Proposition 5. No act of mans no not faith it self can justifie as an act or work nor as This act in specie that is the nearest and formal reason of its justifying Interest must not be fetcht either from the General or special nature of the
28.13 Act. 3.19 with many more The Consequence is plain in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification and by others confessed a chief part and by all it s confessed to be made ours on the same terms as is Justification it self My fourth Proof is from those texts which make these kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to salvation if they are conditions of salvation then are they no less then conditions of our final Justification But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents and it s proved 1 Tim. 4.8 Heb. 5.9 1 Tim. 6.18 19. Luk. 11.28 and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24 25 26 27. Rev. 22.14 John 12.26 Rom. 8.13 Mat. 5.20 Mat. 19.29 Mat. 6.1 2 4 6. and 5.12 46. and 10.41 42. 2 Thess 1.5 6. Col. 3.23 24. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.7 8. Gal. 6.4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 2. Cor. 9.6 9. John 5.22 27 28 29 c. The Consequence is proved good first In that final Justification and Glorification have the same conditions as is plain both in many Scriptures mentioned and in the nature of the thing for that Justification is the adjudging us to that Glory and therefore so far as any thing is the cause or condition of the Glory it self it must be the reason of the sentence which adjudgeth it to us Secondly And salvation is as free as Justification and no more deserved by man and therefore the Apostle equally excludeth works from both Eph. 2.5 8 9. By Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of worke lest any man should boast so Tit. 3.5 6 7. more fully Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works exclude not sincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation then Justification by grace through faith without works doth not in Scripture sence exclude sincere obedience from being the condition of our final Justification nor Repentance from being the condition of our justification as begun for there is eadem ratio and the Text makes the one as free without works as the other But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures Ergo c. My fifth Proof is from those texts that in terms seem to assign a causality to such obediential acts which can be interpreted of no less then a conditionality such are Luke 19.17 Mat. 25.31 23 34 35 40 46. Gen. 22.16 17 18. 2 Chron. 34.26 27. Psalm 91.9 14. Mark 7.29 1 John 3.22 23. John 16.27 Rev. 3.10 and 3.4 and 7.14 15. c. And though some of these texts speak not of Divine acceptance to life yet first some do secondly and the rest speak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Justification A mans own works are excluded other Means and parts of salvation as well as that I run over these briefly and generally both because I expect that the bare texts without my Comments should work upon the Considerate and because I have been so much upon it formerly in other writings as Confess § 3. p. â—6 cap. 3. cap 5. § 2. pag. 117 118. alibi passim as that I apprehend in this work more tediousness than necessity But the chief thing that I further here intend is to answer some Objections that by a Reverend Brother in his second part of his Treatise of Justification are brought against me But before I come to his Arguments its necessary that I a little animadvert on his Description of Justification that we may first agree upon the sense of our terms or at least know how to understand one another Treat Of Justification p. 126. Justification is a gratious and just Act of God whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety a sinner but repenting and believing is pronounced just and hereby put into a state of Reconciliation and favour with God to the praise of Gods glorious attributes and to the Believers eternal salvation I shall not examine this Description by accurate Logical Rules c. Answ First Doubtless an accurate rather then popular definition would as soon be expected from you as from most and here as anywhere in a Treatise purposely on the Subject Secondly Pronunciation doth not go before Constitution not put us into a state of Reconciliation and favour but find us in it you say your self pag. 120. To justifie is to constitute and to declare or pronounce righteous And in your first Treatise of Justification pag. 7. Indeed the Apostle Rom. 5. saith many are made righteous by the second Adam which if not meant of inherent holiness doth imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not meerly declarative but also constitutive and indeed one is in order before the other for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be Treat p. The Application of Justification is attributed to the Holy Ghost Answ I know not of any such except first where Justification is taken for Sanctification Secondly or as the Holy Ghost is made the Author of the Promise though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith also Treat 16. The Socinians say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally not principally even so faith is said to save but this cannot be because Christ is God as well at Man and therefore cannot be instrumental but principal Answ As they err on one hand that say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally which flows from their blasphemous denyall of his God-head so it s an error on the other hand to say that Christ cannot be Instrumental but principal I prove the contrary first If Christ may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption and ruling of mankind then may he be an Instrument But c. Ergo c. Secondly If Christ may be a means he may be an Instrument but he may be a means for he is called by himself the way to the Father and a way is a means Thirdly He is called the Fathers servant therefore he may be an Instrument Fourthly He is said to come to do his Fathers will therefore he is his Instrument Fifthly All Power is said to be given him even the Power of judging John 5.22 and Matthew 28.18 19. therefore he is the Fathers Instrument in judging And your reason is invalid viz. because Christ is God for he is Man as well as God and so may be Instrumental Treat p. 129 130. It sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears that Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works but that those that are against the Covenant of Grace c. Answ A sin is against the Law of Grace or Gospel first because it is against some object revealed in the Gospel which the sin is against as Christ Thus sin was expiated by Christ 2ly As it is against a Precept of the Gospel and thus it is expiated by Christ 3ly As it is a breach of a mans own Promise or
16 17. Because thou hast done this thing c. 4. It s not easie to conceive how any man can expect a Legal or Pharisaical Iustification by Evangelical works without a gross contradiction For example to be justified Legally by Evangelical faith desire love thanks joy self-denyal confession c. are all palpable contradictions And such a mans faith must be thus exprest I expect to merit Iustification legally by believing in Christ as the sole Meriter of my Iustification and salvation or by desiring Christ or by loving Christ as the sole Meriter of my salvation Or by thanking him or rejoycing in him as the Sole-meriter of my salvation Or I expect legally to merit Iustification by denying that I can merit it by any righteousness of my own or by confessing that I deserve damnation by my sins or by praying or seeking for salvation by free gift as merited only by Christ All these are palpable contradictions and no man can hold both that knoweth what he doth 5. Yet I will suppose that though no man can so trust to his works for legal Justification that are apprehended by him as Formally Evangelical yet perhaps he may do it by some works that are Materially Evangelical and fancied by him to be what they are not And so I still say that though it were Legal works that Paul did directly dispute against yet consequentially and indirectly he disputeth against works commanded only in the Gospel if men will do them to Legal ends and fancy them to be of the value legally to justifie them 6. I will therefore suppose some men to be so unreasonable as to expect a Legal Justification by their believing or confessing that Christ only can Legally justifie them and not themselves and so I will grant you that Paul doth consequentially exclude all works even Evangelical works from Justification But though he exclude all works yet not in every notion nor doth he exclude All interest of All works in our Justification All works as valuable offerings he excludes and so as meritorious not only in point of Commutative Justice but also in point of Legal worth and Legal Justice as the Pharisees supposed them meritorious All works he excludes from all proper Causality But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interest at all in subordination to Christ Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Interest in our Pardon in sub-ordination to Christ If you say No not any you contradict God and your self and all the Christian world If you say Yea but they justifie not qua works you say nothing to the controversie For I have over and over as loud as you professed that they justifie not formaliter as works If you say they have any Interest 1. Tell us better what it is 2. And then you confute your general assertion There 's no Christian that I know but will confess that the Gospel works have the interest of Declaring signs in our final Iustification And few will deny that Repentance hath the interest of a necessary qualification or condition to our first Justification Now would you perswade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Interest or opposeth faith to it If not against the signal interest of works then not against all Interest therefore if Pauls general exclusion will consist with your signal Interest then I shall maintain that it will consist with the fore-explained Conditional interest I will not therefore be guilty of your charge of limiting the Holy Ghost If he spake of all works I will believe he means All works But 1. If he over and over near an hundred times at least explain himself as speaking of the Law I will not shut my ears against that explication And 2. I will grant it is also all Evangelical Works at least by consequence But I need not therefore grant that because he excludeth All Work therefore he excludeth All kind of Interest of all works but only that sort which he disputeth against Besides all this I must distinguish of Justification Legal and Evangelical respective to the promises and threatnings of the Law and Gospel which do differ No works at all did justifie Abraham from the charge of the Law Thou art a sinner as being the Righteousness of the Law and the matter of that Justification Nor will any works at all so justifie us But it doth not follow that therefore no works will justifie a man from the false accusation of being an Impenitent Unbeliever and so having no part in Christ whose Righteousness must stop the mouth of the Law Or that no works are the matter of the righteousness required in this Constitution He that believeth shall be saved Repent that your sins may be blotted out Which are here required as the condition of our freedom from the Law by the righteousness of Christ In a word Paul bestows a large dispute to prove that no works of ours do answer the expectation of the Law and so cannot justifie us themselves from its Accusation It s an ill consequence that therefore Paul proveth that no works of mans do answer the special constitution or condition of the Gospel Repent and Believe in Christ c. and so are not the Condition of our interest in that perfect righteousness of Christ which is the only valuable cause of our foresaid Justification Treat 222. Again that works of all sorts are excluded is plain if you consider the Object of Iustification who it is that is here said to be justified and that is the ungodly By the ungodly is one meant that hath not a sufficient and adequate holiness so that Abraham though regenerated yet as to Iustification is ungodly he cannot stand before God or endure if all his imperfections be enquired after Now certainly he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification cannot be called ungodly for he doth all that is required Answ 1. Again I grant all works excluded but not in all their relations nor are all their Interests in Justification excluded 2. This Argument I should not have expected from you You confess that by ungodly is meant such though Regenerate and holy that have not an adequate holiness Adequate To what to the Law or to the constitution of the condition in the Gospel Marvel not if I deny the Consequence of your Argument and if I be unable to digest your reason for it You say He that fulfilleth the Condition of Iustification cannot be called ungodly But what Condition I confess he that fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly nor be unjustifiable by that Law But he that performeth the Gospel-Condition of liberation may be called ungodly in the sense you now mentioned that is unjustifiable immediatly for his works by the Law or one that hath not an holiness adequate to the Law Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly I suppose you clearly see that your Argument makes as much against any Condition of Justification in us as against works
some to be the Conditions of life And if you believe not this I refer you to Mr. Blake who will undertake to prove more 2. But your assertion is groundless I said not that they are works of the Law What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gospel duty Do I call the duty a work of the Law because I say the Law condemneth the neglecters of it 3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion and against that which you dispute against Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers when the Gospel hath commanded faith Have I so much ado to perswade the men of your party that the Gospel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty and that it is truly a Law which the Lutherans have taught too many and now do you think that its only the Gospel that Curseth impenitent unelievers and that maketh punishment due for the remnant of these sins in penitent Believers Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and self-contradiction Treat ib. But above all this is not to be endured that Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the New Covenant and that there is no such breach but final impenitency For are the defects of our Repentance faith and love in Christ other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace our unthankfulness unfruitfulness yea sometimes with Peter our grievous revolts and apostacies What are those but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest though they do not dissolve it But it is not my purpose to fall on this because of its impertinency to my matter in hand Answ I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preached Reader I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour bare-faced To which end besides what is said before understand 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him 3. A violation of Gods constitution Believe and be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions which left us under a non-liberation for that time and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was executed 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant or Law of Grace as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment These are my usual limitations and explications And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all these under the general name of Covenant-breaking 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine and like to make Congregations blessed that our defects of repentance unfruitfulness and unthankfulness c. are such violations of the Law of Grace or the Conditions of the Gospel as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment That is in plain English to say We shall all be damned Treat ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Justification then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts and troubles whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perversness from the fore-named Doctrine but the very Genius of it tends thereunto For if a Condition be not performed then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed As in faith if a man do not believe he cannot say Christ with his benefits are his Thus if he have not works the Condition is not performed but still he continueth without this benefit But for works How shall I know when I have the full number of them Whether is the Condition of the species or individuums of works Is not one kind of work omitted when it s my duty enough to invalidate my Justification Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all seeing that one is required as a Condition Answ Your Argument is an unproved Assertion not having any thing to make it probable 1. Belief in Christ as Lord and Teacher is Works with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he believeth in Christ as King and Prophet and is his Disciple as well as when he believeth in him as Priest 2. Repentance is Works also with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he Repenteth as well as when he believeth 3. Do you not give up the Protestant cause here to the Papists in the point of certainty of salvation We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is sincere And how why by its fruits and concomitants and that we take Christ for Lord as well as Saviour or to save us from the power of sin as well as the guilt And is it now come to that pass that these cannot be known What not the signs by which faith it self should be known and therefore should be notiora This it is to eye man and to be set upon the making good of an opinion 4. Let all Protestants answer you and I have answered you How will they know when they Repent and Believe when they have performed the full of these believed all necessary Truths Repented of all sins that must be Repented of Whether it be the species or individual acts of these that are necessary Will not the omission of Repentance for one sin invalidate it Or the omission of many individual acts of faith are not those acts conditions c. Answer these and you are answered 5. But I shall answer you briefly for them and me It s no impossible thing to know when a man sincerely believeth repenteth and obeyeth though many Articles are Essential to the Assenting part of faith and many sins must be Repented of and many duties must be done God hath made known to us the Essentials of each It is not the Degree of any of them but the Truth that is the Condition A man that hath imperfect Repentance Faith and Obedience may know when they are sincere notwithstanding the imperfections Do you not believe this Will you not maintain it against a Papist when you are returned to your former temper what need any more then to be said of it 6. Your Argument makes as much against the making use of these by way of bare signs as by way of Conditions For an unknown sign is no sign to us 7. And how could you over-look it that your Argument
and not the hundreth line or word to press them to Trust that he will pardon and save them All the powerfull Perachers that ever I heard however they dispute yet when they are preaching to the generality of people they zealously cry down laziness lukewarmness negligence unholyness prophaness c. As that which would be the liklyest cause of the damnation of the people But if only the foresaid saith be the condition and all other Graces or Duties be but meer signal effects of this and signal qualifications of the subject and not so much a conditions what need all this Were it not then better to perswade all people even when they are whoring or drunk to trust on Christ to pardon and justifie them And then when they have the tree and cause the fruits and signal effects will follow Quest 24. Yea Why do the best Divines preach so much against Presumption And what is Presumption if it be not this very faith which Divines call justifying viz. the Trusting to Christ for Pardon and Salvation only without taking him for their King and Prophet If it be said that this last must be present though not justifie How can the bare presence of an idle Accident so make or marr the efficacy of the cause Quest 25. If to be unwilling that Christ should raign over us be part of the directly condemning sin Luke 19.27 why is not the willingness he should raign part of saving justifying faith Quest 26. Seeing resting in Christ is no Physical apprehension of him who is bodily in Heaven nor of his Righteousness which is not a being capable of such an apprehension How can that Resting justifie more then any other Act but only as it is the condition to which the Promise is made Resting on a friend for a Benefit makes it not yours but his gift does that As Perkins cited by me To believe the Kingdom of France shall be mine makes it not mine But to believe Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven c. vid. loc where he saith as much as I vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not said He that believeth shall be justified and saved would Believing have done it And if he had said He that repenteth or loveth or calleth on the name of the Lord shall be justified or saved would not these have done it if so then doth not faith justifie directly as the condition of the Gift Promise or new Covenant And its apprehension is but its aptitude to be set apart for this Office And if it justifie as a condition of the Promise must not others do it so far as they are parts of the Condition Sir If you should deny me the favour I hope for in resolving these doubts yet let me hear whether I may expect it or not And in the interim I shall search in jealousie and pray for direction But till your Arguments shall change my judgement I remain confident that I can maintain most of the Antinomian Dotages against any man that denyeth the principles of my Book and that which is accounted novelty in it is but a more explicate distinct necessary delivery of common Truths Yours RICHARD BAXTER April 5 1650 Sir I Am sorry that you are not in capacity for the motion I profered I thought discourse would not so much infeeble you especially when it would have been in so loving a way And I judged it the more seasable because I had been informed of a late solemn conference you had about Paedobaptism which could not but much spend you I shall press no more for it although this very letter doth abundantly confirm me that letters are but a loss of time for one word might have prevented many large digressions Is not that endeavour of yours in your seventh question to prove out of my book that Repentance is a necessary condition or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned c. a meer impertinency You earnestly desire satisfaction of your conscience therefore I cannot think you do wilfully mistake For is that the state of the question with us Is it not this whether the Gospel Righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing You say by believing and Obedience I say only believing I say faith is only the condition justifying or instrument receiving you make a justifying Repentance a justifying Patience you make other acts of grace justifying as well so that whereas heretofore we only had justifying faith now there are as many other qualities and all justifying as there are Graces So that I do firmly hold and it needs a recantation that repentance and other exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and are media ordinata in the use whereof only pardon can be had But what is this to you Who expresly maintain the righteousness of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours upon our godly working as well as believing If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith had no peculiar Instrumentality in our Justification but what other Graces have then you had hit the mark What is more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato which are not in actu justificationis The fastening of the head to the body is a necessary condition in homine vidente but it is not in actu videntis You grant indeed some precedency to faith but you make Faith and Works aequè though not aequaliter the conditions of Justification I should say much more to the state of the question but I forbear In other things you seem to come off and though I do not say you recede from your Assertions yet you much mollifie them that I need not therein contend with you But here is the stick Let it be demonstrated that whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Justification to believing only as through faith and by Faith and through faith in his blood that you can as truly say it s received by love and it s through love of his blood shed for our sakes c. This is a little of that much which might be said to the state of the question This I judge new Doctrine justifying Repentance justifying Charity And in my Letter I laid down an Argument Rom. 4. Concerning Abrahams Justification the Pattern of all others To this you reckon up many Answers but I see not the Argument shaken by it First you say you exclude a co-operation effective but why do we strive about words You do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Whereas Paul saith he would be found having the Righteousness which is by faith you will add and which is by love by zeal 2. You desire it to be proved that Paul excludes all works under any notion I think it s very easily done First because of the immediate opposition between Faith and Works now you will contradict Pauls Argument and give a tertium works that are of Grace But the Apostles opposition is so immediate here and
if God wil shew me so much Mercy as to enable this restless uncessantly-pained Sceleton to such a work I shall be bold to send you word and claim the favour you offer In the mean time it is my duty to let you know I have received your Letter and to return your hearty thanks for it though it be not that which I hoped for and shall now cease to expect I am convinced now as well as you that Letters are but a loss of time but your Arguments or direct answers to my Questions would have been for my advantage a precious improvement of it but seeing I may not be so happy I must rest content It still seemeth to my weak understanding to be no impertinency to prove that your self affirm Repentance Confession Turning Forgiveing others c to be more then signs i. e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness and to tell you that I say no more and to tell you still that you give more to faith and so to man then I but I give no more to works for ought I descern then you I am sure then our ordinary Divines do And if I do mistake herein you have little reason to suspect me of willfulness though of weakness as much as you please As for the state of the Question between us which you speak of I am a stranger to it and know not what you mean I never came to the stating of a Question with you nor did you state any to me in your letters but mentioned your vehement dissent from several passages in my book and therefore I had reason to think that you fell upon the Questions as there they were stated so that it is intime medullitùs pertinent to my question which is impertinent to yours You say the question is Whether the Gospel righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing and tell me that I say by believing and obedience when I never stated such a question nor ever gave such an answer I suppose by Gospel Righteousness you mean Christs Righteousness given to Believers Now I have affirmed that those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do believe and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically righteous But your phrase made ours doth intimate that our first possession of Christs Righteousness should be upon Obedience as well as Faith which I never affirmed But Christs Righteousness is continued ours on condition of obeying him though not made ours so and we shall be justified at Judgement also on that condition As it is not marriage duty but Contract which is the condition of a womans first Interest in her Husband and his riches but marriage duty and the performance of that Covenant is the condition of her Interest as continued And indeed it is much of my care in that Book to shun and avoid that question which you say is stated between us for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word By which I was loth to play with I know we are justified By God the Father By Christs satisfaction By Christs absolution By the Gospel Covenant or Promise By the Sacraments By Faith By Works for I will never be ashamed to speak the words of the Holy Ghost By our words for so saith Christ Therefore if you will needs maintain in general that Christs Righteousness is made ours no otherwise then by beleiving nor otherwise continued ours you see how much you must exclude But to remove such Ambiguity I distinguish between justifying By as an efficient instrumental Cause and By as by a condition and I still affirm that Works or Obedience do never justifie as any cause much less such a cause but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Justifier we are finally justified And truly Sir it is past my reach at present to understand what you say less in this then I except you differ only about the word By and not the sence and think that it is improper to say that Pardon or Justification is By that which is but a condition You seem here to drive all at this and yet me thinks you should not 1. Because you affirm your self that conditions have a moral efficiency and then it seems when you say Repentance Confession c. are conditions you mean they are morally efficient which is a giving more to works then ever I did 2. Because you know it is the phrase of Christ and his Spirit that we are justified By our words and works and it is safe speaking in Scripture phrase 3. Because you say after that my Assertions are destructive of what Divines deliver but the word By if we are agreed in the sence cannot be destructive and except the phrase only By c. be the difference where is it When you say Repentance c. are conditions and I say they are no more and I have nothing from you of any disagreement about the sence of the word condition Lest you should doubt of my meaning in that I understand it as in our usual speech it is taken and as Lawyers and Divines generally do viz. Est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur quoad ex post facto confirmetur ut Cujacius And whereas Conditions are usually distinguisht into potestativas causales mixtas seu communes I mean conditiones potestativas Where you add that you say only faith is the condition justifying c. but I make a justifying Repentance c. And whereas heretofore we had only justifying faith now c. I answer 1. If by justifying Repentance c. you mean that which is as you say Faith is an instrument or efficient Cause I never dreamed of any such If as a Condition you confess it your self 2. If you speak against the sence we are agreed in that for ought I know If against the phrase then justifying Faith or Repentance is no Scripture phrase but to be justified By faith and By works and By words are all Scripture phrases You say you firmly hold that Repentance and other Exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and media ordinat◠in the use whereof only Pardon can be had but what is this to me c. I answer 1. Add conditions as you do in your Book and you say as much as I. 2. If by the other exercises of Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated or the like and if by Pardon you mean even the first pardon as the word Only shews you do then you go quite beyond me and give far more to those exercises of grace then I dare do For I say that Christ and all his imputed Righteousness is made ours and we pardoned and justified at first without any works or obedience more then bare faith and what is precedent in its place or concomitant and
to use any more distinctions then these few and therefore I will add no more about this Term. As to the term Evangelical Righteousness may be so called in a four-fold sense 1. Either because it is that righteousness which the Covenant or Law of Grace requireth as its Condition Or 2. Because its a Righteousness revealed by the Gospel Or 3. Because it is Given by the Gospel 4. Or because it 〈◊〉 ◠perfect fulfilling of the Precepts of the Gospel By a personal Righteousness we mean here not that which is ours by meer Imputation but that which is founded in somewhat Inherent in us or performed by us Necessity is 1. of a meer Antecedent 2. Or of a Means We mean the last Means are either causes or conditions I shall now by the help of these few distinctions give you the plain truth in some Propositions both Negatively and Affirmatively as followeth Proposition 1. It is confessed by all that know themselves or man and the Law that none of us have a Personal universal Righteousness For then there were no sin nor place for confession or pardon or Christ Prop. 2. And therefore we must all confess that in regard of the Preceptive part of the Law of works we are all unjust and cannot be justified by the deeds of the Law or by our works Prop. 3. And in regard of the Commination of that Law we are all under guilt and the Curse and are the children of wrath and therefore cannot be justified by that Law or by our works Both these are proved by Paul at large so that none have a personal Legal Righteousness Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper satisfaction of his own for the pardon of sin and escaping the curse of the Law But only Christs Satisfaction that fulfilled the Law and became a curse for us Prop. 5. No man can plead any merit of his own for procuring the Reward unless as actions that have the promise of a Reward are under Christ improperly called merits But our righteousness of this sort is only the merit and purchase of Christ and the free gift of the Gospel in him Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfectly justifiable by the perfect precepts of the Law of works And therefore we have no legal personal Righteousness at all that can properly be so called but are all corrupt and become abominable there being none that doth good no not one Imperfect legal righteousness is an improper speech it is properly no legal righteousness at all but a less degree of unrighteousness The more to blame they that call sanctification so Prop. 7. No man can say that he is a Co-ordinate Con-cause with Christ in his Justification or that he hath the least degree of a satisfactory or Meritorious Righteousness which may bear any part in co-ordination with Christs righteousness for his justification or salvation Prop. 8. We have not any personal Evangelical Righteousness of perfect obedience to the Precepts of Christ himself whether it be the Law of Nature as in his hand or the Gospel positives Prop. 9. Even the Gospel personal Righteousness of outward works though but in sincerity and not perfection is not necessary no not as an antecedent to our Justification at the first Prop. 10. External works of Holiness are not of absolute necessity to Salvation for it is possible that death may suddenly after Conversion prevent opportunity and then the inward faith and repentance will suffice Though I think no man can give us one instance of such a man de facto not the thief on the cross for he confessed prayed reproved the other c. Prop. 11. Where sincere Obedience is Necessary to Salvation it is not all the same Acts of obedience that are of Necessity to all men or at all times for the Matter may vary and yet the sinecerity of obedience continue But some special Acts are of Necessity to the sincerity Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness as having a perfect conformity to the Law But not so an Evangelical Righteousness for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits that he was neither obliged to fulfill nor capable of it If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law Christs righteousness was in some sort the righteousness of the Law of works for he merited all the reward of that Law But it was principally the righteousness of the special Covenant of Redemption between the Father and him but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man he did not repent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer If Righteousness be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law then Christs sufferings were neither a strictly legal or an Evangelical righteousness For the Law required the supplicium ipsius delinquentis and knew no Surety or Substitute But thus Christs sufferings were a Pro-Legal-righteousness as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening but a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver which was equivalent and so a valuable consideration why the Law should not be fulfilled by our damnation but dispensed with by our pardon So that the Commination was the cause of Christs sufferings and he suffered materially the same sort of Death which the Law threatened But most strictly his sufferings were a Righteous fulfilling his part of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father But in no propriety were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace against the Despisers or neglecters of Grace I mean that proper to the Gospel Prop. 13. Christs righteousness is well called our Evangelical Righteousness both as it is Revealed by the Gospel and conferred by it and opposed to the legal way of Justification by perfect personal Righteousness So that by calling our own personal righteousness Evangelical we deny not that Title to Christs but give it that in a higher respect and much more Prop. 14. No personal righteousness of ours our faith or repentance is any proper cause of our first Justification or of our entering into a justifyed state Though as they remove Impediments or are Conditions they may improperly be called causes So much for the Negative Propositions Affirm Prop. 1. That a Godly man hath a particular righteousness or may be Just in a particular cause there is no man can deny unless he will make him worse then the Devil for if the Devil may be falsly accused or belyed he is just in that particular cause Prop. 2. All Christians that I know do confess an Inherent Righteousness in the Saints and the necessity of this righteousness to Salvation So that this can be no part of our Controversie Prop. 3. Consequently all must confess that Christs righteousness imputed is not our only righteousness Yea that the righteousness of Pardon and Justification from sin is no further necessary then men are sinners and therefore the less need any
Marriage-consent then may we not as well say Marriage causeth Marriage as to say Marriage causeth Love Answer No. For 1. That Love which it causeth is the following acts of Love 2. And the name of Love is most usually given only to the Passion which is in the sensitive but not usually to the meer Velle the elicite act of the rational appetite I have been the more prolix on this because it serves also for answer to other of your Objections especially the third 2. You object Gospel-Precepts are many if not all the same with the moral Law if justified then by obedience to them are we not justified by the works of the Law c. Answer 1. James yields the whole 2. If you speak of our Justification at first by which of guilty and lyable to condemnation we become recti in curia or are acquit I then yield all that you seek here viz. that we are not justified by works 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned mistake of my meaning as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works 4. We are not justified by works of the Law if you mean the Law of works or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt which are the works that Paul speaks of 5. That which you call the moral Law viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue taken Division without the sanction viz the Promise or the Commination is not the Law but one part of the Law and the other part viz. the sanction adjoined if diversified makes it two distinct Laws though the Duty commanded be the same The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam is not the same with that which should command a sick man to drink some for a cure 6. That our Justification is continued on condition of our sincere obedience added to our faith I maintain with James 7. Will you answer your own objection and you tell me what to answer Faith is a duty of the moral Law if we are justified by faith then we are justified by a work of the Law I know you will not evade as those that say Faith is not a work but a Passion nor as those that say we are justified by it not as a work but as an Instrument for I have heard you disclaim that If you say it is not as a work but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end then you say as I do both of faith and secondarily of works For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation or of the final Justification or of our present Justification as continued vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam recaptam as Conr. Bergius saith I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured on but lately an acute Disputant with me maintains that faith is not conditio moralis vel ex voluntate constituentis but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei But I think I shall easily and quickly disprove this opinion Rababs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace and not of the old Law of works In a word As there is a two fold Law so there is a two fold Accusation and Justification when we are accused as breakers of the Law of works that is as sinners in common sort and so as lyable to the penalty thereof then we plead only Christs satisfaction as our Righteousnes and no work of our own But when we are Accused of final non-performance of the conditions of the New Law that is of being Rejectors of Christ the Mediator we are justified by producing our faith and sincere obedience to him The former Paul speaks of and James of the latter You may see Divines of great Name saying as I in this as Mead Deodate on James the 2. but most fully Placaus in Thes Salmuriens Thes de Justific c. To your third Objection That Faith Repentance Hope and Love as before explained are distinguished I easily yield you But where you say Faith and Love have different Objects therefore one is no essential part of the other I answer That faith in Christ and Love to the Saints which your Texts mention have different Objects I soon confess But faith in Christ as it is the first Act of the Will and love to Christ have one and the same Object beyond all doubt Your fourth I wholly yield if you speak of faith strictly or as it Justifieth and not in a large improper sence Your fifth is grounded on the forementioned mistake of my meaning And there needs no further answer but only to tell you that though sincere obedience to all Christs Lawes be a part of the condition of our Justification as continued and consummate at Judgement yet it follows not that every particular duty must be done no more then that Adam must obey every particular Law before he were actually just It is sufficient that there be no other defect in our Obedience but what may stand with sincerity The same Precept may command or make Duty to one and not to another and so be no Precept as to him A man that lives but an hour after his conversion is bound sincerely to obey Christ according to his Law but he is not bound to build Churches nor to do the work of twenty years Christ may be received as King and is in the same moment in which he is received as Justifier and in that reception we covenant to obey him and take him for our Lord to the death but not to obey him on earth when we are dead for we are then freed from these Lawes and come under the Lawes of the Glorified To your sixth I answer The Texts alledged have no shew of contradicting the Point you oppos se One saith we are justified by his Blood But doth it thence follow therefore not by Believing in him or receiving him as King are we made partakers of it His Blood is the Purchasing cause but we enquire after the condition on our part The other Text saith through faith in his Blood But 1. it saith not only in his Blood 2. And his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of his Justifying us for by his blood he bought all into his own hands For to this end he Died Rose and Revived that he might be Lord of Dead and Living Rom. 14.9 It may be therefore through faith in his Blood as the chief part of the satisfaction and yet necessarily also through faith in himself or the Reception of himself as the Christ 3. Yet doth the Apostle most conveniently say through faith in his blood rather then through faith in his Dominion or Government because when he speaks of Faith he speaks Relatively not as some understand it by Faith meaning Christ but using the name of that Act which fitliest and fulliest relates to its Object and so intending the Object more
therefore doth not give it No wonder therefore while you deny this Legal Testamentary Moral Donation that you are forced also to deny Justification constitutive but very inconveniently and unsafely By what way doth God give a father Authority over his Children and a Husband over his Wife and a Magistrate over the people and a Minister over the Church or Flock but only by this Moral Legal Action And even so doth he give Power to them that receive him to become his Sons And it is the same Instrument which performeth this which is called a Promise Covenant Testament Disposition or Law the name being taken from different respects or accidental considerations Again If the word of Christ do judge us then that word doth justifie and condemn For judging in general containeth these special Actions But the word doth judge us and shall do at the last day therefore the word doth justifie and condemn Again It is a Rule in the Civil Law as Vlpian that By the same way as an Obligation is induced or caused it must be removed or destroyed But by the curse of the Law or the Threatning of Penalty was our obligation to punishment and condemnation induced or caused therefore by the way of Law dissolving that cause must it be taken off Now as Reatus est obligatio ad Poenam so pardon is the dissolving of that Obligation or discharge from it Venia Poena sunt adversa And therefore the Law of Christ or this his Promise or Grant is the Instrument of Pardoning And methinks when you are convinced that God pardoneth by Law or moral Action you should easily yield that in the like way he justifieth For if you be not of the Judgement that Remission and Justification are all one yet you must needs yield that they are of so near a nature that the difference is exceeding small and rather notional and respective then real I might to these Arguments add somewhat from the Issue and different tendency of this my opinion and the contrary As that this doth give Gods Laws their honor and dignity by ascribing to them that higher and more noble and effective Action which the contrary opinion denying it doth very injuriously debase the Scriptures or Laws of God Also that this opinion is the only expedient left that I can find to avoid the Antinomian fancy of an Eternal Justification which all they must assert that say it is an Immanent Act which you justly and truly deny For your way lying in the other extream 1. Overthroweth all constitutive Justification which is not to be born Whether All Pardon by the Covenant I yet know not your mind 2. And it Intepreteth all Scriptures that speak of a Justification in this life of a strange feigned Justification which for ought I find hath no ground in Scripture at all and is wholly aliene to our condition and at least utterly unknown to us if not known to be untrue What doth it concern a sinner to be justified or condemned now before a Court of Angels where he is not present nor knows any thing of it nor do we know what Angels have to do in such a business And what Transient Act is it that God then and there puts forth or performeth Can you tell or doth Scripture tell you God speaketh not to Angels by voyce If you think as the Schoolmen some that they see our Justification as other things in the face of God then it is no Transient Act. Else why may not they see it in it self And then either our Justification is Gods Essence and they see it in him as his Eternal Being or else God must be mutable as having something to be seen in him de novo which was not in him from Eternity If you say that this Transient Act is Gods Illuminating the Angelical understanding to know us to be justified then this supposeth that we are justified already by some former Act which can be nothing that I know but the moral Act of his Lawes For their knowing us to be justified is not a justifying us but presupposeth us to be what they know us to be I can think of nothing else that you can say except this that Christ as man may Vocally or by some equivalent Transient Act pronounce us Justified as he will do at Judgement But 1. this is without Scripture 2. and it is God that justifieth 3. And then how were all the faithful justified before Christs Incarnation and Ascension Or do you think none were justified before But I will return to your Exceptions You say This is but Virtual Justification which is in Law Title Answ 1. It is Actual Constitutive Justification and not Virtual only 2. But it is indeed but Virtual sentential justification But yet it is of the highest kind of Virtuality It is that which makes us rectos in curia which I take to be the nature of our Justification in this life And taken divisiâ— it seemeth more excellent in some respect then the sentence or declaration it self for he that by Purchase first and Pardon written after maketh Offenders just in Law i. e. non obligatos ad poenam seemeth to do more for them by that act then after by pronouncing them just Though yet this last I know is the most perfect Justification taken conjunctim with the rest as the end to which they tend and as that which giveth them their full effect Your next Objection is that this Gospel Justification is general and indeterminate to particular persons Answer It cannot be more certain or effectual For when it is to all no man hath reason to think himself excepted who excludes not himself by non-performance of the conditions Every particular man is comprized in All. And for the determination the Description of the person is as certain a way as the naming of him To give Christ and his Righteousness to All that will receive him is as effectual a determinate Gift to each particular Receiver as to give him to Peter Paul John by name If a Pardon be proclaimed or given in the Laws to all Offenders that perform such a condition is it not as effectual to each person as if he were named If a Father bequeath such Lands or Monies to all his Children or a man to all the poor in the town on condition that they come by such a day to such a place and signifie their acceptance and gratitude is not this as sure and good as if they were all named Next You object This is performed before the person justified believes Answer I have said enough to you of this already of Bapt. pag. 100. I add this much you must distinguish between the Physical act of making this Law Promise Covenant Grant or Testament and the Moral Agency of this Law Grant or Testament once made The former was before we Believed but the later was not properly and fully till after Do not all Philosophers and Divines in the world that meddle with
it tell you that this is usual with moral causes that they may have all their absolute Entity and vim agendi long before they produe their effects and may be Actu primo etsi non secundo effectum producente in being long before The Law that determineth of your right to your Possession or that doth give a Reward to every man that killeth a wild hurtfull beast or that condemneth every man that murdereth or committeth Felony c. was in Being before those persons were born perhaps And yet it did not hoc agere it did not Praemiare Punire Praecipere c. as to this man before A pardon from a Prince to a Traytor on condition doth not perform the moral act of his discharge till he perform the condition though it were in being before The like I may say of a Testament or Deed of Gift But what need many words in a case where the Truth is so obvious If some moral causes may be causes and Agere moraliter or produce their effects even before they are naturally in Being much more may they suspend it and so produce it long after they are in Being Causae enim moralis ea ratio est ut etiam cum non est actu sit efficax modò habe at ut loquuntur in scholis esse cognitums inquit Rivetus Disput 13. de satisfact Christi pag. 282. Next you say Yea it is the same though none were actually justified Answer This requires no other answer then what is given to the former It is the same Physice considerata vel in Entitate naturali But the moral action of pardoning and justifying is not the same nor is at all A conditional Pardon Deed of Gift Testament c. doth not at all pardon or Give till you perform the condition For it is the proper nature of a condition to suspend the act of the Grant so that till it be absolute or equal to Absolute it is not Actual Remission Justification c. The reason of all this is because these Laws Testaments or Promises are but the Law-makers Testators or Donors Instruments and therefore act when and how he pleases and it is his pleasure that they should act no otherwise then as is aforesaid and as in the Tenor of them he shall express Next you add To be justified notes a passion which presupposeth an Action transient not immanent or only Gods purpose to justifie Answer 1. So far as the Reception of a Relation may be called a Passion this is true And no doubt you are in the right that it is not Actus immanens But now What transient Act it is I remember very few Divines that once tell us but only in general say It is a Transient Act. Now you and I that have adventured to enquire do happen to be both singular from others and differing between our selves only Mr. Rutherford and some few others I find saying oft that we are pardoned and justified by the Gospel by which they seem to mean as I But for your way of Justification by a sentence before the Angels as I never met with any that judged that to be our Justification by Faith so as I have said it seems to me very groundless and strange And then if yours stand not mine only must for any thing that is yet discovered that I have seen for I know of none that tells us of any third Your next Objection is the same before answered that God 's Promise to justifie is only a declaration what he will do and therefore a man is not by Covenant without a further Act justified but justifiable Answer Grotius de satisfact will tell you that Promises give right to him to whom they are made and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed though threatnings may But if these were only Promises that God will by another Act do this or that for us then it were to the purpose that you say but that you cannot prove Nor needs there any other Act but the moral Action of the Instrument it self to change our Relations here Et frustra fit pro plura c. Indeed an Act of ours Believing must come in before the effect but you and I are agreed that this is but conditional and not effective These Promises therefore being also Gods Law Testament of Christ Deed of Gift Covenant c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to pass by some other Action but they do confer a Right or make due the benefit or relation and so effect it only the Author is pleased to suspend the effect of his Instrument till we perform the Condition As if by a Lease or Deed of Sale there be some Office or Dignity made over to you or some command in Army or Court or Country or by a Law a Foraigner be Naturalized or Enfranchized on such or such a Condition This Lease or Deed or Law doth not only foretel but effect the thing You add that Justification is a Court-term importing an Act of God as Judge whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge but Rector Answer 1. If by a Court-term you also mean a Law-term verbum forense or judiciarium in the full sense I agree with you But if you confine it to the sentence as pronounced I require Proof as also proof of any such sentence before Judgement particular or general A Rector is either Supremus or Subaliernus A Judge is either supreme above all Laws as being the Law-giver or sub lege God is both Rector and Judge only in the first senses and by judging he Ruleth and Rector is but the Genus whereof Judex is a species As Rector supremus God is the Legislator and so acteth and justifieth by his Laws Grants c. as Judge he sentenceth and absolveth those that were first made just A man is accused for killing another in fight at the command of the Soveraign Power Is it not as fit and proper a saying to say The Law doth justifie this man for so doing against all Accusers as to say The Judge will justifie him Nay Is it not more ordinary And in a sort the Supream or Soveraign may be said to be though in a different sense justified as well as an Inferior when yet the said person in Supremacy hath no Judge nor is to have any by Law and so cannot be justified by sentence God will be justified in his sayings c. as he hath in a sort bound himself by his own Laws that is signified his Resolution to observe them so in the sense of these Laws his works are now just and shall be hereafter so be manifested but not by any sentence of a Superior But this I confess differeth from our Justification Next you say You know not whence it should be that Angels should judge us righteous and rejoice therein but by a sentence passed in Heaven Answer If you think and prove that Angels cannot know us to be righteous then I will not affirm that