But such is the Doctrine of Faith therefore I know some Divines to the no small wrong of the Christian Faith say None can really believe it but the Regenerate But the Jews believe the supernatural Revelations of the Old Testament and the Divels and many a thousand wicked men believe both old and new experience tells us so Christ tells us so that many believe who fall away in persecution James tells such men that they do well in believing but the Divel doth so too else men could not reject or persecute the known Truth To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits infunduntur ad mâ—dum acquisitorum and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary yet that makes not other causes unnecessary Rada who concludes that Theologia nostra non est evidens gives but these two poor reasons and I should as soon look for strong ones from him as almost any man of his Religion or party 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia sed Condita therefore nec Conclusiones c. I deny the Antecedent which he proves nor Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei and that is evident so is the Revelation as is said 2. He saith Si conclusiones nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes possemus convincere Infideles ut fidem nostram susciperent quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum I answer 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction as a Will to understand and divers other things which the wicked want As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects but for want of good eyes that a blinde man seeth not so it is here 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion yea the Divels themselves believe And whereas he adds Pauls words 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith not by sight it speaks not of Rational Evidence but of sensitive and that we confess is wanting Faith is the Evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 Were it not for digressing too far I would examine the 9. Quest Mater 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate and shew how ill he answers the nine Arguments which he undertakes to answer and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis And I should shew that Faith is a kinde of Science or if we will distinguish it from Science it must not be so widely as is usual nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup will without any help see the weakness of his answers and how he seemed to stagger himself Yet let me add this caution or two 1. I do not mean that every man who hath true Faith doth discern the great and chiefest Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine of Faith 2. Where there is the same Evidence in the thing there may be such different apprehensions of it through the diversity of Intellectual capacities and preparations as that one may have a firme Belief and certain and another but a probable opinion and another none at all 3. Though I take the Evidence of the Doctrine of Faith to be as full as I have mentioned yet not so obvious and easily discerned as sensitive evidence and therefore as one cause there are fewer believe 4. Also the distance of the objects of Faith makes them work less on the affections and the presence and other advantages of sensual Objects for a facile moving the Spirits makes them carrie men away so potently by making greater Commotions in the passions so that no wonder if sense do prevail with most I confess also that men have need of good acquaintance with Antiquity and other History and the Seal of the Church in most parts of the world to see the strong Evidence that there is of the Infallible Tradition of the Scriptures down to us and to some obscure men this may be inevident as it may be to one brought up in a secret Cloister whether ever we had a King or Parliament or Laws in England But the thing is not therefore inevident to the industrious No though it depend on that verity of Report which as proceeding from each particular person is contingent seeing there is Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Circumstances of these Contingent reports And as Rada when he concludes boldly that Cognitio Dei respectu Contingentium non est proprie scientia c. yet seems to grant that God may scire Contingentia uâ— necessaria si non ut Contingentia so it may be said in our present Case the same Reports which are Contingent are yet in other respects of Evident Verity and so we know them But I finde I have been drawn beyond my intent to digress far on this point but it is because it tends to clear the main point in question To return therefore to Mr. Blake I do not know the meaning of his next words where he saith that This Argument Well followed would put me to a great loss in some of my Arguments for Scripture c. Doth he think that I argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures from themselves alone as the Testifier thereof to our Faith or that I take it to be meerly or primarily de fide that Scripture is Gods Revelation when I have professedly published the contrary before those Arguments where I have also added these words of Mr. Rich. Hooker wherewith I will conclude this Section Truly it is not a thing impossible nor greatly hard even by such kinde of proofs so to manifest and clear that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principles such as all men acknowledge to be true Again Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation but it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred Again These things we believe knowing by Reason that Scripture is the Word of God Again It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield it any other Assent then such as doth answer the Evidence Again How bold and confident soever we may be in words when it comes to the tryal such as the Evidence is which the Truth hath such is the Assent nor can it be stronger if grounded as it should be so far Mr. Hooker cited once more Eccles pol. p. 102 103 c. §. 76. Mr. Bl. TO winde up all though there be some difference in the way between me and my learned friend yet there is little in the thing it self Mr. Baxter saies that the Proposition to which God sealeth runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee The soul must assume the Minor But
That Right to a benefit is the meer effect of the Gift Donation or Revealed Will of the Giver And therefore no Act of the Receiver hath any more interest or any other then it pleaseth the Donor to assign or appoint it to have So that suppositâ actus naturâ all the formall Civil interest comes from Gods meer Will as Donor for to the Absolute Benefactor doth it belong as to conferre all Right to his freely-given Benefits so to determine of the Time and Manner of Conveyance and so of the Conditions on the Receivers part The nature of the Act of Faith is caused by 〈◊〉 as Creator of the old and new Creature I mean of our natural faculties and their supernatural endowments or dispositions And therefore this is presupposed in ordine naturae to faiths Legal interest As God is first the Maker of earth before he is the Maker of Adams body Faith is to be considered as being Faith i. e. such acts exercised about such objects in order of nature before it can be rightly considered as justifying or the condition of Justification Seeing therefore it receives all its formal Legal interest from God as Legislator and Donor of Christ and his benefits which is after its material aptitude ad hoc officium its interest must not be gathered directly ex natura actus but ex constitutione donantis ordinantis And therefore you must first prove out of the Gospel that It is the Ordination of God that as Christs several actions have their several effects for us and on us so our faith shall be the proper condition of each of these various effects quâ apprehendit as it Beleeveth or Accepteth each distinct effect or Christ distinctly as the cause of that effect etiam consideratum in modo causandi But alas how invisible is the Proof of this in all your Writings I will leave the rest of the Propositions by which I intended here together to have opened some more of my sense till afterwards because I will not interrupt the present business Here either my Understanding is too shallow to reach your sense or else you are guilty quoad literam of very great confusion which one would think should have befallen you at any time rather then when you are blaming others of unsufferable confusion and yet quoad sensum involutum of more dangerous unscriptural unproved Distinction 1. Your expressions confound Christ and his Actions with mans faith in our Justification Or these two Questions By what are we justified ex parte Christi and By what are we justified ex parte nostri 2. Your implied sense even the heart of your reasoning consisteth in this assertion that As our Right as to the several benefits received is to be ascribed distinctly to several distinct Causes on Christs part so also as distinctly are the particular Benefits quoad Debitum vel Titulum to be ascribed to the several distinct apprehensions of these Benefits as most say or of Christ as diversly causing them as some say And here I cannot but complain of a treble injustice that you seem to me guilty of even in this elaborate Treat wherein you correct the Errors of so many others 1. Against the Truth and Word of God in implying it to have done that even in the great Point the Constitution of the Condition of Justification and Salvation which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing and cutting the Condition of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive your doctrine 2. And also in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reason for the proof of it which is injustice when you are Confuting others and Rectifying the world in so great a Point 3. Lastly and leastly it is evident injustice to your Friend to Accuse him for it is no hard matter to know whom you mean with confounding the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship which he still distinguisheth as exactly as he can though he do nor distribute as many offices to Faith as there are objects for it or as he doth to Christs several Works Why did you not name one line where I do confound the parts of Christs Offices I pray you do it for me in your next I will not trouble you much with Arguments for my opinion in this Point seeing you meddle with none already laid down and seeing I have done it over and over to others and because I am now but Answering to your Confutation Only let me tell you that the Proof lieth on your part For when I have once proved that God giveth Christ and his Benefits to man on Condition he will Beleeve in Christ or Accept him If you will now distinguish and say It is Accepting his satisfaction which is the Condition of Justification and Accepting him as King which is the Condition of Sanctification or Glorification c. you must prove this to be true For non est distinguendum vel limitandum ubi Lex non distinguis vel limitat If God say Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and you say Beleeving in him as Priest is the only Condition of saving thee from guilt and Beleeving in him as King is the only Condition of saving thee from the power of sin c. you must prove this which you say Or if you will not say It is the only Condition but the only instrument you give up the Cause For the word Condition is it that expresseth its neerest Legal Interest in justifying or conveying any Right and that which you call its Instrumentality is but the natural Aptitude and Remote Interest 1. It is the Receiving of Christ as Christ that justifieth as the Condition of Justification But he is not received as Christ if not as Lord-Redeemer 2. Justifying faith is say the Assembly the Receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord and not as Saviour only Therefore c. 3. Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ as a full Saviour But that cannot be except he be received as Lord. For to save from the power of sin is as true a part of the Saviours Office as to save from the guilt 4. Justifying faith receiveth Christ as he justifieth us or as he is to justifie us But he doth justifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor as he satisfieth and meriteth in the form of a servant under the Law 5. If receiving Christ as a Satisfier and Meriter be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds you must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification For Christ Merited one as well as the other 6. Rejecting Christ as King is the condemning sin Therefore receiving him as King is the justifying faith Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring
to us it is strictly taken nor had I used the term Condition as to God but as it was necessary to satisfie the Objector who so called it intimating the improprietie of it Also I did plainly shew that the thing called Gods Condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and Repenting Gods is the bestowing of these as the Question expressed or the giving us new and soft hearts that we may do it our selves and do it readily and willingly c. as I expressed pag. 46. because I was not willing to meddle affirmatively or negatively with the question of Gods immediate Physical Efficiencie of our own act yet I doubt not but God doth truly powerfully and effectually to the removing or overcoming all resistance move the Soul to the act it self and therefore it may truly be said that not only Gods own Action but also our action of Believing is the thing promised called his Condition by the Querist and though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Blakes Treatise This much being premised I Reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute Promise as well as a Conditional till you give me better Reasons of your denyal or your Questioning whether Scripture will bear it And I shall yet say that the giving of our Faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise For your Argument to the contrarie hath little in it to compell me to a change Your Maior is Whose acts they are his conditions they are instead of proof you say This is evident I Reply 1. Negatively it had been evident de Actione qua talis that it is no ones Condition but his that performs it as the condition is said to be his that performeth and not his that imposeth it But Affirmatively the proposition holds not universally Nor Negatively speaking de Actione qua est quid donandum To your Minor I could better answer if I could have found it I expected it should have been this But our Faith and Repentance are not Gods acts But I know not whether I may be so bold as say you will own that Before you say This rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours where 1. you cautelously speak the two Propositions copulatively and 2. you put in the word formally which may do much to help you out For the former it is enough according to your own Rule to prove them Gods Conditions and ours if they be Gods Actions and ours for you say Whose actions they are his Conditions they are that is evident It is not therefore necessary that I prove them Gods and not ours 2. It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form If the former action is the form it self it is harder to finde out its matter Accidents have not properly matter and form but the subject is called its matter but Action hath scarce so proper a subject as other Accidents have seeing it is rather Agentis then in agente inhaesivè Of transients it s beyond doubt and I think so of Immanents unles we may with Scotus take them for Qualities If you speak of Moral formality were it sinful Action I should deny God to be the Author but of Faith and Repentance I dare not do so I think God is the Author of them formally as well as materially But in your following words you say But they are our acts c. God believes not c. Reply 1. To believe is our act but to give us Faith or to move us effectually to Believe as a superior Cause this is not our work but Gods 2. Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods 3. There are sufficient reasons why God is not said to Believe though he cause us to believe If you go on the Predeterminants grounds I suppose you know their reasons who take notice of the Armenians making this objection If you enquire of the Jesuits and Arminians that go the way of determined concourse or of partial Causality they think they have yet more to say of which I suppose you not ignorant Durandus his followers think they have most of all to say both why God should be said to believe and why he is not the Author of our sin in that they suppose that he causeth not the act immediately And yet all these acknowledge God to be the cause of our acts But you adventure a step further and say Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods Works Reply 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that God worketh all our works in us those which he worketh are sure his works And that It is God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed. 2. I never met with any orthodox Divine but would yield that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit And the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work 3. If you go the common way of the Predeterminants you must acknowldge that God is the Physical Efficient Predetermining Principal Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtless of our Faith and that both Immediatione Virtutis Suppositi so that it is more properly his act then ours For my part I confess my self of Bishop Davenants minde who saith against Hoard p. 116 As for the predetermination of mens Wills it is a Controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites with whose Metaphysical speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains Or at leâ—t they should not I take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man which way Gods works on the Will in these respects Though if I must encline to any one way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then I finde in Ludov. à Dola who yet hath more then I have seen well answered and lest of all to the Predeterminants for all the numerous arguments of the Dominicans and the seeming strength that Dr. Twisse Heerebâ—ord Rutherford and others of our own do adde to their cause But yet I am far from denying our Faith and Repentance to be Gods Works for I doubt not but he causeth them ut causa Vniversalis by his general Providence as they are natural Actions and also by his special effectual Grace contra omnem Resistentiam infallibly causeth them as they are the special gifts of the Spirit So that I marvail that you should say they are not Gods Works In the conclusion you adde Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the frame into which Grace puts us so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God Reply Both Velle Perficere is the gift of God and not only Posse Velle perficere Why should I trouble the Reader to say any more to that point when Dr. Twisse and others against the Remonstrants have said so much and Austin so much before them all And yet I never
Effect are so related that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect Though it may still be the same Thing and have the same Aptitude to produce the Effect even when it is not applied and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cause still 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument except you would arguâ— thus The grant of the Covenant is not an Instrument of justifying unbelievers that never were justified Therefore it is not a full or proper instrument of justifying believers that are justified Or else therefore faith is an instrument as well as the Gospel To your Reader that is no wiser then I these words therefore are at the best but lost labour For I suppose this Argumentation you will not own §. 16. Mr Bl. WHen the Minister is a Minister of condemnation the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death §. 16. R. B. 1. SO it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of Justification Saw you not this when you wrote it §. 17. Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Gospel for Justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred §. 17. R. B. DArkly but dangerouslly spoken Darkly for its possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine quâ homo non est subjectum proximè capax and so I grant the sense dangerously For the words will seem to any impartial Reader to import more specially finding what you say for faiths instrumentality before viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel which if you mean I would for the Truth 's sake and your own that these words had never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause-instrumentall coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate 2. If it were the former that is meant yet were it intollerable 1. Nothing but a superiour cause doth convey efficaciam causandi to another And this must be either 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris 2. Vel in actum To say that mans faith doth either of these to the Gospel-grant is such a doctrine as I will not dare to argue against left you take me thereby to accuse you of being guilty of it 2. Faith cannot as a concause convey any efficacy into the Gospel For a co-ordinate concause doth influere immediatè in ipsum effectum at non in concausae potentiam vel actum 3. If you had only said that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gospel to Justification you had said more then you bring any proof for But let 's see what you bring in stead of proof §. 18. Mr Bl. HEb 4.2 Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it 1 Thes 2.12 13. You received not the Word of God as the word of men but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh in you that believe §. 18. R. B. BUt where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your Cause 1. In the first Text the Apostle speaks of the words profiting in the real change of the soul and our question is of the Relative The Scripture meaneth The word had not that further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie them 2. It s true that the Word did not justifie them but that 's consequential only of the former unprofitableness Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions and then you do something 3. Is here ever a word for the Gospels receiving its efficacy to Justification by faith no nor of its so receiving that real profit of sanctification which is here meant neither It s weak arguing to say The Word profited not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying You cannot but know the sequel would be denied In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this much less to Justification where faith is no efficient For concauses have not influence on each other but both on the effect The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the soul which presupposeth faith for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation and that 's all that the Text saith But may not the absence of faith hinder unless when present it doth effect I am sure in Justification where it is but a condition it may The nature of a condition when the gift is free and full is not to effect the thing but to suspend the efficacy of the instrument till it be performed As if I may use so gross a similitude the clicket of a Cross-bow doth hinder the â—ow from shooting till you stir it but doth not adde any force to it when you do stir it The second Text I know not how you mean to make use of unless you argue thus The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of Justification §. 19. Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much less say that the Word hath such an influx §. 19. R. B. THe Gospel in it self considered without the coordinate or subordinate or superiour causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it Much less should prefer the causality of faith in saying that we may much less give this honour to the Word or say this of the Word then of our own faith Yet the Gospel without the concomitancy of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non But that is no dishonour to the Gospel nor defect of power which faith must supply But the force of the instrument being meerly from the Donors will he willeth
not believe you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of sin who dye This is the part of the penalty which the sentence passed on the offendor himself for all the promised satisfaction by a Redeemer Nor did the Redeemer satisfie to that end to prevent our death or to cause that it should not be the wages of sin but to deliver us from under the power of it Where you say that this way of God with unbelievers is voluntary not necessitated I Reply So it may be nevertheless because it was meant in the threatning It is dangerous to imagine that God is ever the less free or more necessitated so as that his actions should be less voluntary because of his determinations He doth as voluntarily do what he hath predetermined to do and foretold he will do as if he had done neither God changeth not and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution as he was in the determination §. 59. Of the Law as made to Christ Mr. Bl. CHap. 6. p. 25. And though Mr. Baxter doubts whether it be any part of Gods Legislative Will as it referrs to Christ but only as it belongs to us as a Prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom and so of us Append p. 39. Yet me thinks it is plain seeing Christ acknowledges a command from his Father in laying down his life Joh. 10.18 and the Apostle speaking of the work saith He was obedient in it c. §. 59. R. B. ONe that had not read what I write would think by your Answer that I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Christ at all or not Whereas I spake only of that called the Covenant between the Father and the Son made from Eternity or the promises expressed by the Prophets as to Christ in his meer Divine nature not yet incarnate For I conceive that Christ before the incarnation may not be said to be a subject and that God is not properly said to command himself or covenant with himself or make promises by Prophets to himself But I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of special use and if well done would do much to remove the stumbling blocks which the Antinomians fall upon §. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional Promise absolutely or the conclusion conditionally when only one of the Premises is of Divine Revelation And whether this conclusion be de fide I am Justified and shall be saved Mr. Bl. p. 38. BVt that which I may not pass is somewhat of concernment both to my self and the present cause in hand c. §. 60. R. B. I Need not transcribe these words being of another and not spoke to me But I will pass my conjecture to his questions 1. I conjecture that the Querist by Evading meant Owning and Justifying the fact and so evading the blame 2. To the second I conjecture the Querist had been lately conversant in Mr. Blakes book and so it was in his memorie and whether he knew what those whom you mention do hold I cannot tell 3. To the third If by Sacramental sealing you mean Conditional sealing I conjecture his conceit might be this that as the Promise may be conditionally tendred to Infidels Murderers or any other so might the Seal if it were but Conditional as the Promise As we may say to the worst If thou wil◠believe thou shalt be saved so might we conditionally seal salvation to him But I take this to be a great mistake §. 61. Mr. Bl. p. 40. MR Baxter who is put to it to stoop too low in the answer of such trifles in his answer to this now in hand hath taken much pains to finde out the way of the Sacraments sealing and in the result he and I shall not be found much to differ yet seeing providence made me the occasion of starting the question I shall take leave to take some view of what is said Mr. Baxter saith It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal Absolutely or Conditionally till you first know what is that they do seal and in order to the finding this out he layes down the way that a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation which is thus He that believeth is Justified and shall be saved but I believe therefore I am Justified and shall be saved I confess if I had been put upon a discovery of that which is sealed in the Sacraments this Syllogism I think would scarce have come into my thoughts seeing the Seal is Gods as Mr. Baxter observes I should have rather looked for one from him then to have supposed a believer to have been upon the frame of one §. 61. R. B. THis dispute is so confused and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it let men have made what use of yours they pleased but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by in your handling it I think your meaning and mine is the same 1. I not only said as you express that the Seal is Gods but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism as well as another 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making why did you not tell us when or where you found it and let us see as well as you whence you had it that we may know God made it God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself nor actu immanente if he do it it is only for us per actum transeuntem and then it may be found in his word But more of that anon 4. I should think though for illustration I judged it not unuseful that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all in the enquiry after the sealed proposition If it be but one proposition we may express it alone If more we may distinctly express them rather then that shall breed any difference I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more Let us see what yours is §. 62. Mr. Bl. ANd such a one I should have looked to have gathered up from the Institution and thus I conceive framed He to whom I give Christ to him I give Justification and Salvation But here I give thee Christ therefore to thee I give Justification and Salvation §. 63. R. B. 1. WHat mean you by gathering it Do you mean that you will read it there ready formed If so shew us the Chapter and Verse But that must not be expected for you say anon that it is something not written that is sealed
unsavory words that I have let fall And I must desire you not to suppose that I judge of all the rest of your Book as I do oâ— this which I have here Replyed to I value the Wheat while I help you to weed out the Tares Pardon my confident Concluding you in the error and my self in the Truth whether it be from the convincing self-revealing nature of Light or from the common unhappy fate of the deluded I must leave you and others to judge by the Evidence that is in my arguments whatever further evidence I may have my self within doubtless the various state of Intellects doth cause a strange variety of apprehensions of those objects which are in themselves the same And words be but defective signs There is something in Sensation and Intellection which words cannot fully shâ—w to another It is but the Species and not the thing it self which you see in this Glass My most exquisite description of my own Tast and the sweetness of what I tast will not cause another to tast that sweetness And there is somewhat like this in Intellection it self for though I confess my self ignorant what manner of thing our Intellection will be when we are out of the flesh yet now me thinks I perceive that it doth in some sort participate of sense and that vid August de Trinit li. 5. c. 1. initio Senâ—io me Intelligere is a speech not wholly void of Truth I confess also that I should have little modesty or humility if I should not think more highly of the understanding of your self and so many Reverend and Learned Brethren who dissent from me in several points here debated then of mine own But yet we must prove all things and not so trust to other mens eyes as to shut our own or refuse to give credit to our sight They may far excell me in many other things though they mistake in this I remember Pauls If we or an Angel from heaven c. And I remember Tertullians Non ex personis probamus fidem sed ex fide personas li. Prescript adv haer c. 3. And Irenaeus his Presbyteris adhaerere oportet qui Apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyterit Ordine sermonem â—anum custodiunt c. li. 4. c. 44. And Cyprians Quae ista obstinatio est quae praesumptio humanam traditionem Divinae dispositioni anteponere nec animadvertâ—re indignari irasci Deum quoties Divina praecepta solvit praeterit humana traditio Epist 74. ad subaâ—an p. 229. And many a one of Austins yet plainer then these to the same purpose are commonly known Paul himself could do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth as having no Authority given him to destruction but to Edification I am willing to stoop to the judgment of my betters as far as is Reasonable Conscionable and Possible and if no further I hope I may be excused when I see plain Reason against them it is unreasonable to subscribe to the opinions of the most learned when Scripture is against them it were dishonest and unconscionable And when they are one against another to assent to all is impossible In such a case I must needs bear the Accusations of one party who think me Arrogant Proud and Self conceâ—â—ed as supposing my self to be wiser then they But I have long been studying and Preaching and I think practising that necessary and excellent Duty of being so contented with Gods sole approbation as those that know they stand or fall at his bar and therefore must esteem it a very small thing to be judged by man I have long valued and believed that saying of Austin commonly cited and found lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 6. the very last words Contra Rationem nemo sobrius Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus In the point of Faiths Instrumentality and the nature of the justifying act which I differ from you in I am constrained upon all these three grounds to my dissent 1. Lest by renouncing my Reason I should cease to be sober Though yet I think sober men may be contrary minded not seeing these Reasons 2. Lâ—st by forsaking the Scripture I should cease to be a Christian Though Christians that observe nor or understand not that the Scripture is against you in this may judge as you 3. Lest by contradicting the Church I should cease to be peaceable â—o Though men otherwise peaceable may be drawn to it through prejudice If you will bring one sound Reason one word of Scripture or one approved writer of the Church yea or one Heretick or any man whatsoever for many hundred years after Christ I think I may say 1300 at lest to prove that Christ as Lord or King is not the object of the Justifying act of Faith or that Faith Justifieth properly as an Instrument I am concented so far to lose the Reputation of my Reason Understanding Reading and Memory For though I have not read all that hath been written for so many hundred years yet I have read most of the Writers of great note except the most Voluminous which 〈◊〉 but part of and by that much I see so far into the sense and language of those times that I dare stand to the hazard of this adventure I speak this because you tell me that there was scarce a dissenting voice among our Divines that are against me about the Instrumentality of Faith And if there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200 or 1400 years after Christ I pray you tell me whom a humble modest peaceable man should follow were he never so much ready to deny his own understanding Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 years therefore I am suspected as singular and as a Novilist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious Novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the Interest of mans Obedience in his Justification as continued and consummate in Judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athonagoâ—as Tatianus Clem. Alexand. Minutius Fâ—elix Arnoâ—â—us Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alexandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any Councel were of your minde in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at lest my supine negligence in reading or my very faulty memory in retaining their words And for Austin Chrysost and others of whom I have read but the lesser part I do strongly conjecture by that part at their sense and that they concurr with the rest If you say that the Fathers had their errors and all this is but humane Judgement and all men are fallible I confess all this to be true But as I still say that Contra. Ecclesiam nemo pacificus so I desire