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
Honour or of the Prince as one to honour him that is the sole condition of his Honour Nor is it accepting of Riches that is the sole condition of enriching him But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom that is the Condition of all together and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit as another Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman and the Prince having Ransomed her doth send this offer to her That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince to love honour and obey him he will deliver her and make her his Queen and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches Here now if the Question be What it is on his part that Redeemed her What that Delivered her What that honoured her What that enriched her each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause and the causes not confounded And she must distinctly apprehend by what way and cause each priviledge comes But if you ask only What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits Why it is but one entire undivided Condition before mentioned Will you here subtilly distinguish and say that her taking him to deliver her is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance and her taking him to Dignifie her is the sole condition of her Dignity and her taking him as Rich or to enrich her is the sole condition of her enriching No It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches that is the sole condition of enriching her Yet if any should in one Question include both What on his part did save her from death and what on her part then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text in our case It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer I should wrong you by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness if I should spend words in application of this to our case Having been so much too tedious already I will only adde That the common doctrine in this Point requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit and so one act of faith Justifieth another Adopteth c. And that act which receiveth Justification which they call the Passive instrument thereof in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam And so with them Credere Justificari must be Synonimall termes For so to receive Justification is nothing but to be Justified §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideon or Sampsons valour that were their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-tapt them and yet he was not thereby Justified as 1 Cor. 4.4 §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith An act of Justification If you speak properly you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè either that some act of faith is an act of Justification as the efficient but that 's farre from truth to beleeve and to justifie differ or else that it is an act constituting Justification But that is as far from truth for then Credere should be Justificari If you speak improperly you must mean either An act effecting Justification as it seems you do which is unsound as well as improper or else An act which is the Condition of Justification which is sound though improper 2. Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of Justification or not all of them The proper importance of your words is for the former But that is a dangerous untruth for vers 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith they saw the promises i. e. the good promised a farre off and were perswaded of them and embraced them c. But which soever you mean you should have proved your assertion It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification as begun But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification I do not think but that act by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification though it were the preparing the Ark being moved with fear I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous and that by which Enoch pleased God and without which it is impossible to please him had some hand in Justification I think these four great acts mentioned v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification 1. To beleeve that God is viz. that he is God the Chief Good the first and last the principal efficient and Ultimate End c. 2. The diligent seeking of him 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so 4. Coming to him If this be distinct from the second When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth from his praises 3. Yet you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideons valour acts of Justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith its true Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts and so you mean not the obedience valour c. but the act of faith which excited it then you might call those acts of justifying faith But if I had called valour and obedience so I should have been blamed 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification Do you think that any act of faith is Justification You mean if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine the instrument of Justification 5. But then how come you to say next that it is Christs blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which improperly may be called also the Matter of it But I think it is neither our Justification formally nor the instrument of it in proper speech 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been Which is the justifying act of faith and which not and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11.
or angry which side soever I take I am sorry that I have made you sorry but not for that Doctrine which caused it which yet I shall be as soon as I can see cause for it 2. Why would you not here attempt to prove that which you are so sorry should be denied viz. That faith is the instrument of Justification Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonstration of the errour of what you complain of 3. I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of Justification as you are that I deny it And as your sorrow urged you to publish it so did mine urge me And my sorrow had these causes which I am content may be well compared with yours that it may appear which were the juster and greater 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it 3. I thought it of dangerous consequence to say that man iâ— the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins 4. Yet all this had never caused mâ— to open my mouth against it for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels But for the next viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality but they laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference between us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification say they it is that they Fundamentally erre and we Principally differ And that in these four Points 1. About the formall cause of our Righteousness which say these Divines is the formall Righteousness of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde In the habitual Righteousness of his humane nature and others The natural Righteousness of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation herein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that Legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which Justifieth which say most of our forreign Reformers is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof I doubt not but all these four are great Errors Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists That which troubled me was this To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion when they finde that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause what wonder if they judge our Cause naught This is no fancy nor any needless fears but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause as will not easily be healed Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase and not made it so great a part of our Religion to the hazarding of the whole I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can finde them You begin with and say more for faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ You can say no more of me concerning this but that it will be scarce allowed to be so called This intimates that I make it no matter of contention nor do I know how I could have said less if any thing when it s only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention and not the sense which I thought with so much tenderness I might do upon reason given it being no Scripture phrase If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument They that say the Habit is the instrument speak not properly but far more tolerably then the others do If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul then so may other Habits And why is not this language more in use among Logicians if it be so unquestionably proper But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument for you answer only to what I say against that I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving in Answer to another Learned Brother which for the necessity of distinguishing here I would have added but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive Receiving in a Civil Ethical less proper sense is but the Act of accepting what is offered When it is only a Relation or Jus ad rem that is offered Consent or Acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession or proper Passive reception that it is therefore called Receiving it self yet is indeed no efficient cause of the Passive reception or possession but a conditio fine qua non and a subjective disposition and so makes the subject capable of the benefit but being no efficient it can be no instrument Yet still I say that if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase specially if some men had the same ingenuity as others have that say it is but instrumentum metaphoricum But to say that the act of faith is the instrument of Ethical Active reception which is it that I argued against is to say Receiving Christ is the instrument of it self Now let 's see what you say to this 1. You say It s too subtill a Notion That deserves no Reply 2. You say We use to speak otherwise of faith That 's no proof that you speak properly You say Faith is the eye of the soul and the eye is not sight Faith is the hand c. Ans 1. Strange proof not only by Metaphors but by metaphors of meer humane use 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the soul as distinct from sight and the hand as distinct from receiving Tell us then what actual seeing and receiving is To speak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Assertion Next you say Scripture speaks otherwise That 's to the purpose indeed if true You cite Act. 18.26 where is no such matter If By signifie an instrumentall cause It is either Alwaies or Sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies If but sometimes Why do you take it for granted that it so signifies here Why did you not offer some proof This is easie Disputing Next you say Why else is this Righteousness sometime called the
of God or man can be sole instruments but there must be a mutual concurrence of both §. 7. R. B. A Dangerous Doctrine in my Judgement to be so nakedly affirmed No doubt but Justification is a Relative change and it is past Controversie that it is not without the actual concurrence of man for he must perform the Condition on which God will justifie him But that God is not the sole Efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument I durst not have affirmed without proof and much less have undertaken to prove §. 8. Mr Bl. THis must needs be granted unless we will bring in D r Crispes passive recipiency of Christ Christs abode in man without man in spite of man and suppose him to be justified in unbelief §. 8. R. B. THis is very naked asserting Why did you not shew some reason of this ill consequence It s past my reach to see the least 2. Why do you still confound Christs real abode in us by his Spirit with the relation we have upon Justification when even now you affirmed it was a relative work as you call it I pray by the next shew us more clearly how these absurdities follow that doctrine which affirmeth That God is the sole Efficient cause of our Justification but having made mans Belief and Consent the Condition whose nature is to suspend the effect till performed he will not justifie us till we first believe and consent This is my Doctrine plainly §. 9. Mr Bl. ANd faith is disabled from this office in Justification by this Argument If faith be an instrument it is the instrument of God or man c. I Ans It is the instrument of man and though man do not justifie himself yet he concurres as a willing ready Agent with God in it God is a justifier of those that beleeve in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God hath set Christ forth a propitiation through faith Rom. 3.25 §. 9. R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction saying and unsaying my Logick is less then I thought it had been If it be Mans instrument of Justification and yet Man do not justifie himself Then either Man is not Man or an Instrument is not an Instrument or Justifying is not Justifying Had you only affirmed it to be mans act and Gods instrument how absurd soever otherwise yet you might have said Man doth not justifie himself But if it be mans instrument then man is the principal cause in respect of the instrumentall For omne instrumentum est causae principalis instrumentum And can he be the efficient cause and yet not effect Is not that to be a Cause and no Cause In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion nor much stress laid on it if it were true because it s so obscure That man concurres as a ready Agent who doubts but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and Justification Is the performer of the condition of Gratefull consent no willing Agent unless an efficient Cause The text you cite doth not speak of instruments for ought I can finde §. 10. Mr Bl. ANd because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also the instrument of God As some have observed a communication of Titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his Name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwels in our hearts by faith Eph. 3.17 We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Act. 15.17 They believed and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification So on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8.13 §. 10. R. B. IF this be indeed true That it is mans instrument of Justification and Gods both then both God and man are both Causae principales partiales by coordination making up one principal cause This I hope you will not downright affirm I deny it on this reason Every absolute Donor I mean who is absolutely owner of what he gives is the totall cause-efficient-principal of his own Donation But God in justifying is an absolute Donor giving remission and Righteousness Therefore c. 2. Or else God and man must be principal causes one subordinate to the other and each total in his own kinde This must be your meaning by your first words But then which of these is the most principal cause and which the subordinate It is hard for a better wit then mine to know your minde by your words For when you say Because it is mans instrument it is also Gods instrument It may seem that you take it to be mans instrument first or else how can it be therefore Gods instrument because it is mans But yet whether you speak de ordine consequentis vel consequentiae de ordine essendi efficiendi vel de ordine dicendi colligendi I know not However I will not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you take man for the most principal cause and God for the subordinate but contrarily But then you do not only make man the pardoner and justifier of himself but you make him the nearest total cause of it and so it would be as proper to say Man forgives himself as that God forgives him And so faith would be only mans instrument directly as being the nearest cause-principal and Gods instrument remotely As if I hold my pen and you hold my hand the pen is proximè my instrument and remotiùs yours And so God should justifie and pardon man by himself as Gods instrument As if a Judge had committed Treason and the King should give him authority to Judge Pardon and Absolve himself But how much might be said against this To justifie efficienter is actus Rectoris Sed homo non est rector sui ipsius in the sense in hand Therefore he cannot justifie himself Indeed if you had spoke only of the Justification in soro conscientiae you might well have ascribed it to man as the efficient cause but that you speak not of 2. The communication of Titles that you speak of is 1. very rare 2. Uncertain whether at all found in Scripture That Text 1 Cor. 12.12 seemeth rather to leave out the Church as understood then to communicate Christs Name to it q. d. So is Christ and the Church I would advise all friends of mine to take heed that they presume not on this slight ground to communicate Christs Name to the Church in their ordinary speech 3. But who can tell what you mean by a communication of actions Your putting Communication of actions in contradistinction from Communication of Titles makes the proper sense of your words be that Christ doth as really communicate actions themselves as he doth Titles themselves
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
is to dissolve the obligation to punishment and to constitute the condition of this Right or Pardon For Donaâ—tis est constituere conditionem etiam in ipsa instrumentali Donatione But faith doth not conferre Right for your self say It doth but receive it It doth not dissolve the obligation but accept a Saviour to dissolve it It doth not constitute the condition of right for you acknowledge it is the condition it self To conclude this Point for the compromising or shortening this difference between you and me I will take your fairer offer pag. 75. or else give you as fair an offer of my own Yours is this Faith is considered under a double notion First as an instrument or if that word will not be allowed as the way of our interest in Christ and priviledges by Christ In this general I easily agree with you If that satisfie not I propound this Call you it an instrument of receiving Christ and consequently righteousness and give me leave to call it precisely a condition or a moral disposition of the subject to be justified and I will not contend with you So be it you will 1. not lay too great a stress on your own notion nor make it of flat necessity nor joyn with them that have made the Papists believe that its a great part of the Protestant Religion and consequently that in confuting it they refell the Protestants 2. Nor say any more that it gives efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us and is more fitly then the Gospel called an instrument 3. Yea I must desire that you will forbear calling it at all an instrument of Justification and be content to call it an instrument of receiving Justification and I would you would confess that too to be an improper speech If you resolve to go further let me desire you hereafter 1. To remember that its you that have the Affirmative that faith is the instrument of justifying us and I say It is not written you adde to Scripture Therefore shew where it is written expressely or by consequence 2. Do not blame me for making sincere obedience part of the meer condition wherein I think you say as much as I and so as giving too much to man when you give intollerably so much more as to make him the instrumental efficient cause of forgiving and justifying himself 3. Above that I have yet said I pray forget not one thing to prove faith to be the instrumental efficient of sentential Justification which is most properly and fully so called as well as of Legal constitutive Justification For that 's the great point of which you have just nothing pace tui si ita dicam of which you should have said much And so much for the Controversie § 28. Of Evangelical Personal Righteousness Mr Bl. Pag. 110 c. THere is yet a third opinion which I may well doubt whether I understand but so far as I do understand I am as far from assent to it as either of the former and that is of those who do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is compleat and perfect which if it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie dissimulation or doubleness implying that they do not only pretend for God but are really for him that they do not turn to him feignedly as Israel was sometime charged Jer. 3.10 but with an upright heart Or of the perfection or entireness of the object respecting not one or only some but all Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it The Covenant cals for such perfection Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be thou perfect and many have their witness in Scripture that they have attained to it as Noah Gen. 7.9 Job 1.1 Hezekiah Isa 38.3 But a perfection above these is maintained a perfection compleat and full Righteousness signifies as is said a conformity to the Rule and a conformity with a quatâ—nus or an imperfect rectitude is not a true conformity or rectitude at all Imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjectoâ— Though holiness be acknowledged to be imperfect in all respects where perfection is expected in reference to the degree that it should obtain or the degree which it shall obtain or in reference to the excellent object about which it is exercised or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sense the preceptive part of the new Covenant In all these respects it is imperfect and Righteousness materially considered is holiness and therefore thus imperfect but formally considered it is perfect Righteousness or none this not in relation to the old Rule but the new Covenant Upon this account they are charged with gross ignorance that use and understand the word Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed Righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement with the Law of works This and much more to assert a personal perfect inherent Righteousness as is said all which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over I never took imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction any more then imperfect holiness §. 28. R. B. THe third opinion you rise against is that which you take to be mine as your citing my words doth manifest but you confess your self uncertain whether you understand it or not There is a possibility then that when you do understand me you may prove your self of the same Opinion In the mean time it is your Reasons which must justifie your strong dissent which I shall be bold to examine Where you say I do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is perfect I Reply Either you suppose the later proposition to be an addition to the former in terms only or in sense also If only in terms the sense being the same I suppose you would not oppose it If in sense then it is either somewhat real or somewhat modal which you suppose the later to adde to the former Real it is not for Res perfectio Rei are not distinguished as Res Res but as Res Modus It is therefore but a modal addition And it is such a Modus as is convertible with Ens. And therefore there is as much imported in the first Proposition We have a personal inherent Righteousness as in the second We have a perfect personal inherent Righteousness For Ens Perfectum are as convertible as Ens Bonum or Ens Verum You adde If it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie c. or of the perfection or entireness of the object
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soveraignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his Soveraignty doth Justifie us §. 1. R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes that I resolve to begin with it I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions and not de Substantia rei But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importance of your expressions may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on And that not per accidens but from its proper nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against and I am glad to find you so little in love with it as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered For now I rest assured that you will not be offended when here or hereafter I shall open your guiltiness of it and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise before I can give a clear answer to your words 1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant called by most Justificatio Juris and Justification per sententiam Judicis 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun and as continued or consummate 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation 4. Between these two questions What justifieth ex parte Christi and What justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non cum quâ 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification and his actual justifying him by constitution or sentence Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in these Propositions which some of them shall speak further then the present Point in Question for a preparation to what followeth Prop. 1. Christ did Merit our Justification or a power to justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant Prop. 2. Christ dotn justifie Constitutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e. quoad valorem rei he conferreth it ut Dominus gratis benefaciens but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi ut Rector Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the new Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remission and constitute us Righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Satisfier but joyntly ut Benefactor Rector Prop. 3. Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Prop. 4. Sentential Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification that in Law being quoad sententiam but virtual Justification though quoad constitutionem debiti relationis it be actual Justification Prop. 5. Faith justifieth not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say To justifie is not to make such a real change Though some joy◠with the Papists in this and tell me that as the Divine Attributes make their several moral Impressions on the soul according to their several natures so do the satisfaction and merits of Christ apprehended procure comfort and joy and a justifying sentence to be pronounced in the soul it self and so the apprehension of Christs Soverainty causeth our subjection which last is true Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Physical Causation or Efficiency in justifying seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare in whole or in part but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis sed conditionaliter collatum It is a Relative change that is made by Justification and not a Real or Physical Prop. 7. The Legal formal interest or conducibility of Faith to our Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition in the proper Law-sense as the word Condition is used viz. that species of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Potestativae and not Casuales vel Mixtae Prop. 8. Scripture doth not say that I can finde that Faith justifieth but that we are justified by Faith I therefore use the later phrase rather then the former both because it is safest to speak with the Scripture and because the former speech seemeth to import an Efficiency but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition Yet I will not quarrell with any that speaks otherwise nor refuse to speak in their phrase while I dispute with them as long as I first tell them my meaning Prop. 9. Though ex parte Christi our several changes proceed from his several Benefits and parts of his Office exercised for us yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his several Benefits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object Christ meriteth Remission for us as Satisfier of Justice and he actually justifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge and he teacheth us as Prophet and ruleth us as King The real mutations here on us receive their diversification partly from our faith because there faith doth efficere or causare As we learn of Christ because we Beleeve him or Take him for our Teacher We obey him because we Take him for our King c. But it is not so with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Christ and his Benefits Faith doth not obtain Right to Remission and Justification distinctly as it receiveth his Righteousness or himself as Priest and so Right to the Priviledges of Christs Government distinctly as it taketh him as King nor Right to Adoption as it taketh him as a Father nor Right to Glory as it taketh him as Glorifier no more then all inferiour benefits as Title to Magistracy Ministry Health House Lands c. proceed and are diversified by the divers aspects of our faith on Christ The true Reason of which is this
that it shall then and not till then efficere when the condition is performed I appeal to all the Divines Lawyers and Logicians in the world when the thing to be conveyed is but Debitum vel jus ad rem and the effect is but a Transcendental relation as debitum is Is not the Voluntas constituentis vel Donantis the only principal proper efficient And is not the sigâ—um voluntatis constituens the properest instrument that the wit of man can imagine Is not the Testament of a man the most strict and proper instrument of conveying right of the Legacy to the Legatary Is not a Covenant Contract Deed of gift the most proper instrumental efficient cause of the duness of the thing given or conveyed It is not only a Law term but a term of the strictest Logick to call these a mans instrument for conveyance Is not a praemiant or priviledging law in the most strict and proper sense the Legislators instrument effecting the debitum praemii vel privelegii It is evident that the fullest definition of an instrumental efficient cause doth agree to these as far as the nature of the effect Relatio debiti vel juris will admit of full or proper efficiency For these instruments are the very fundamenta proxima of these relations Can you prove the like yea and more of faith and will not But I pray once more â—emember that it is not the effecting of a Physical change but a relative the conveying of Right that we are speaking of so full an instrument is each of thâ—se that the very name of the effect is oft given to them So a pardoning instrument is called A pardon the instrument of donation is called A deed of gift The Law is said praemiare punire quia constituit debitum premii paenae §. 20. Mr Bl. PEmble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working only per modum obâ—ecti as it contains a declaration of the Divine Will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known beleeved and practised §. 20. R. B. Mr Pemble speaks of the Word effecting or as the instrument of sanctification We speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying What 's that to this 2. When did Mr Pemble prove that the Word or other objects are passive instruments You know he goes against the stream of Philosophers and then his reasons must sway more then his authority And his reason which you say he gives is but this It cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will c. But I will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates I have read many that say that objectum operatur in genere causae finalis and others that say it worketh in genere causae efficientis some saying it effecteth Physically others that it effecteth morally others that objectum operatur naturaliter at prâ—ponens objectum est tantum causa moralis others that it is causa efficiens objectiva protatarctiâ—a respectu earum operationum qua ab illa immediate exercentur sed causa finalis respectu aliorum operationum quae ab illa sunt priorum interventu as Burgersâ—is speaks But I remember none that call it Instrumentum passivum yea not only the object but declaration and all Instrumentum passivum For my part I am of Scotuâ— minde that Objectum operatur efficienter per mâ—dum naturae in intellectum sed moraliter tantum in voluntatem irresistibly and necessitatingly on the intellect considering it as an intellect and not so far as it is sub imperio voluntatis ita ejus operationes sunt participativè voluntariae but on the will not so And I am sure this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerfull pulling down strong holds sharp dividing c. The seed of God by which we are begotten lively the Word of life saving mens souls quickning sanctifying cleansing c. But what 's all this to Justification §. 21. Mr Bl. SO that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckerman 's Incus instrumentum fabricationis and his scamnum mensa accubitus terra ambulationis yet it followeth not as is thence inferred that there is no passive instrument Here is an instrument that is passive §. 21. R. B. THese words import an intimation that I said all these were active instruments which should not have been done when I manifested that I took some of them for no instruments 2. These words intimate as if I concluded hence if not only hence that there are no passive instruments which should not be when I only brought in these as Objections to be answered and argued with Schiblâ—r against passive instruments thus Every instrument is an efficient cause All efficiency is by action Therefore every instrument is active If you chose rather as ordinarily you do to silence my reasons then answer them yet you should not have intimated as if I had given you none or but such as I gave not 3. I look for your proof of a passive instrument and not to say Here is an instrument that is passive as if you were demonstrating it to my eyes when you bring nothing but singular Mr. Pembles singular word And I doubt whether you beleeve him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And indeed so it must or not at all for pati non est operari and therefore Pemble denieth it to cooperate and to operate Be not offended if I doubt whether you beleeve this your self in your Studies Preaching Writing and Exhortations 4. I doubt not but that which doth only realiter pati may be called an instrument moraliter vel reputative but then its reputative instrumentality consisteth in a reputative activity 5. And I doubt not but the dispositio materiae may by a borrowed speech be called instrumentum recipiendi and so instrumentum passivum i. e. Passionis i. e. Receptionis but all this is nothing to the business 6. If it were proved that there were a hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument signifieth an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither Really nor Reputatively is it such §. 22. Mr Bl. THat which is produced by an efficient or principall agent to the producing of an effect and receives activity and power from some other is a passive instrument and not active §. 22. R. B. STranger yet 1. It s
c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
vel actio ad receptionem propriam necessaria and that the true reception which is pati non agere doth follow faith and therefore Christ himself is received only Receptione fidei ethicâ activâ metaphoricâ Species Christi predicati recipiatur receptione naturali intelligendo Jâ—â— ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passivâ propriâ That which is conditionally given on condition of acceptance or the like and offered to be accepted this is received Receptione fidei ethicâ whereupon followeth the actual efficacious giving of that thing the condition being performed which suspended it and this the beleever receiveth Receptione passivâ propriâ but it is not his Faith that receiveth it 7. The great thing therefore that I would desire to be observed is this that though faith were an instrument of the foresaid objective or of the Ethical Metaphorical recption of Christ which yet is not properly being ipsa Receptio yet it is not therefore the instrumental cause of the passive proper reception of Right to Christ or Righteousness Of this it is only the condition and not the proper instrument For I shall shew hereafter that it is impossible it should be both It doth morally qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified as M. Benjam Woodbridge saith truly in his excellent Sermon of Justification The reason of this is That it is only Donation or the will of the Donor signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own Benefits The Receiver is not the Giver and therefore not the conveyer of Right Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is only giving that effecteth this right Now if the giving the donation had been absolute it had absolutely conveyed right and faith would have had no hand in it as being no condition Or if the gift had constituted another condition that other would have had the causing interest that faith now hath ut causa siue qua non So that the the nearest and formal interest of faith is It s being the condition and its apprehension of its object is but the remote aptitudinal reason being ipsa fides The great thing therefore that I affirm is this That if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousness yet doth it not justifie proximè formaliter As such but As the condition of the gift performed 8. And if you will speak improperly and call faith as it is the performed-condition instrumentum Receptionis it is not therefore instrumentum Justificationis In a few words thiâ— is the summe 1. Faith is an Ethical Metaphorical reception of Christ 2. If any will speak so improperly as to call this The instrument of this Ethical reception I will not contend with him 3. This Ethical reception Active is constituted by Christs Testament the condition of Passive proper reception of Right to Christ and with him to his Benefits Faith must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of Right 4. It justifies therefore quâ conditio and not quâ fides in Christum or as they improperly speak quâ instrumentum Christum apprehendens 5. If any will take the word Instrument so improperly and largely as to comprehend the condition then you may so further say Faith is not only the instrument of Active reception but of true Passive reception of Right to Christ and so of receiving Justification 6. But this is quâ conditio prâ—stita and not qua apprehensio Christi 7. And therefore every act that is part of this condition may so be called instrumentum recipiendi 8. And if it were as they would have it that faith is the instrument eo nomine quia Christum apprehendit then every grace that apprehendeth Christ must be the instrument too And doubtless Knowledge Love Hope Delight c. do apprehend or receive Christ in some sort and have him for their object 9. Though I will not contend with him that will say Fides non quà fides sed quà câ—nditio praestita est instrumentum morale recipiendi jus ad Christum justiâ—iam ab ipso promeritam Yet as I think he laieth a snare for himself and others in turning the plain and proper term Condition into an improper term instrumentum Recipiendi so I think it not to be endured that therefore faith or any act of man should be called the instrument of Justification For though you may in a strained speech say that Receptio moralis activa being made the medium or condition Receptionis physicae passivae may therefore â—e called instrumentum recipiendi and Credere vel acceptare said to be moraliter vel reputativè pati and so every condition quà condition be termed a Receptive instrument I say though I will not quarrell with this speech for meer unfitness yet it is a higher and more dangerous errour to say That faith or any condition is therefore instrumentum Justificationis It is not an instrumental efficient cause of the effect because it is medium fine quo non recipitur As Realis vel naturalis receptio Justificationis is not Justificare sed Justificari so much more evident is it that Moralis imputativa Receptio Justificationis non est Justificare sed medium necessarium ad Justificari 10. Lastly I say again what I said in my Aphorismes These two Questions must be distinguished What is the nearest reason of faiths interest in Justification And what is the remote reason or why did God assign faith to this office To the first this is the only true Answer Faith Justifies rather then any thing else because God in framing his deed of gift was pleased to make faith the condition The meer constitution of the Donor is the cause To the second this is my Answer God chose faith to this office of being the justifying condition rather then other duties because it was fittest as being in its own nature An acceptance of a freely given Christ and Life with him which men call the instrumentality I have the more fully opened my meaning here together about this point though with some repetitions that I might leave no room for doubting of it and misunderstanding me §. 12. Mr Bl. THe Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Faith then is the act of man man beleeves yet the instrument of God that justifies only beleevers §. 12. R. B. 1. THe Spirits working in Sanctification is nothing to our question of Justification 2. The Spirit worketh our first faith without faiths co-working and that is more then nothing 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith move it self and that is more then nothing 4. It is not so easily proved as said that the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any
evil without the co-working or instrumentality of faith But these are beside the point 5. When you have laid down one Proposition Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Concedo totum Is that your Conclusion Would you have no more Who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justifie man unless his faith be the instrument of it And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself when you say Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God No nor with him neither For none can forgive sins but God only even to another but who can forgive himself Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself for I did not beleeve it 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall efficient causation of our faith Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved and not barely affirmed §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of Agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an Article of his faith 1. What you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate unless that which is never a principall 2. Nor know I whether by sole you mean Materialiter Formaliter vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument Here the instrument is but one though the matter of it may be of divers parts Sure this is not your sense that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument 2. An instrument may be called sole formally when it it is the only instrument and there is no other concurreth to the effect If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments then it is more nakedly then truly asserted nor do they hold ever the more or less whether the instrument be sole or not else they would hold against few instruments in the world For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument especially of subordinate instruments though it may be usual as to coordinate 3. An instrument may be called sole Respectivè as to the principal cause viz. It is not the instrument of many principals but of one only Is this your meaning that my exceptions would hold if faith were only mans instrument or only Gods but not when it is both If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof or reason why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal as of a single surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that 2. If God and man be both principals as they must be if faith be the instrument of both then either coordinate or subordinate but neither of these as I have argued before Man neither forgives himself under God or with God if you speak of one and the same forgiveness Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness whereby a man may forgive himself whereof Seneca speaks de Ira when he saith Why should I fear any of my Errors when I can say See thou do so no more I now forgive thee lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations that here is such a concurrence of Agents that God makes use of the act of man to produce the effect of Remission and that as an instrument and not only as a meer condition fine qua non §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of Justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification You here come more short of satisfying me against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument You say This indeed is Gods not mans I say There is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum You say It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification I answer 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification as to humble to give faith to Regenerate c. But that 's nothing to our business 2. But as to the act of Justification or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousness I say It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability 3. If you should mean that of it self i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition it is not able I answer that 's not fitly called disability Or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coâ—fficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition were performed §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slayes not nor an ax an instrument to hâ—w when it cuts not Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification where it justifies not §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words I know you had not leasure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified Do you think I know not a Cause and
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
the conditions of the Law of grace and therefore hath no right to Christ and Life or say simply that we have no right to Remission and Salvation if we can deny the charge and produce our performance of the said conditions we are then non-condemnandi and the Law of grace which giveth Christ and Life on those conditions will justifie us against that charge of having no right to Christ and Life But I think so will not the Moral Law The Law of works justifieth no man but Christ therefore it is not the Law of works by which we are to be justified in judgement But some Law we must be justified by for the Law is the Rule of judgement and the word that Christ hath spoken shall judge us therefore it must be by the perfect Law of Grace and Liberty If it be then said against us that we are sinners against the Law of nature we shall all have an answer ready Christ hath made sufficient satisfaction But if it be said that we have no right to the pardon and righteousness which is given out by vertue of that satisfaction then it is the Law of Grace and not the Moral Law that must justifie us Even that Law which saith Whosoever beleeveth shall not perish c. Moreover doth not the Apostle say plainly that Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises and if that first Covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second but finding fault with them he saith Behold the daies come saith the Lord that I will make a new Covenant c. Heb. 8.6 7 8. which speaks not only of Ceremonial precepts but principally of the promisory part If you should say This is the Covenant and not the law I Reply 1. Then the law is not the only Rule 2. It s the same thing in several respects that we call a Law a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant act to God of which we speak not Who knows not that praemiare punire are acts of a Law and that an act of oblivion or general pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of grace So that I have now given you some of my Reasons why I presumed to call that Ignorance which I did not then know that you would so Wholly own §. 34. Mr Bl. THe perfection of this holiness and righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God for a pattern so to his Law as a Rule §. 34. R.B. 1. IT was the very transcendentall perfection which is convertible with its being as to Righteousness which then stood in a perfect conformity to the Law Adam after his first sin was not only less righteous but reus mortis condemnandus and not righteous in sensu forensi according to that Law For I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Moral Righteousness consisting in a habit of giving every man his own but of Justitia forensis 2. There is a partial reparation of our holiness in regeneration but no reparation of our personal inherent legal Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine §. 35. Mr. Bl. AS an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise §. 35. R.B. 1. EIther that Image is like the Samplar as you call it in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the later then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case 1. Because it is Justitia universalis and not particularis that according to the Law of works must denominate the person righteous and not-condemnable 2. Because indeed no one word action or thought of ours is truly conform to the Law of works 2. Similitude as Schibler tels you truly doth lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magis or minus and therefore strictè philosophice loquendo saith he that only is simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which properly is but minus dissimile Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè and philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand And so that may be called the Image or likeness of God which participated of so much of his excellency as that it demonstrateth it to others as the effect doth its cause and so is less unlike God I dare not once imagine that a Saint in heaven is like God in a strict and proper sense 3. If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose For in this conformity of ours there is something of Quantitative resemblance as well as Qualitative and so it hath a kinde of parity and equality in it as well as similitude to the Rule And I hope you will yield it past doubt that parity admits not of magis minus what ever similitude doth §. 36. Mr Bl. SIncerity is said to be the new Rule or the Rule of the new Covenant But this is no rule but our duty taking the abstract for the concrete sincerity for the sincere walking and this according to the rule of the Law not to reach it but in all parts to aim at and have respect to it Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Psal 119.6 And this is our inherent righteousness which in reference to its rule labours under many imperfections §. 36. R. B. WHen I first reade these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my non-sense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Far was I from imagining that so Reverend Pious and Dear a Friend would tell the world in Print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine which I never wrote and which any man that would reade my Book might finde is wrongfully charged on me And truly I dare not yet say that you are guilty of this For though I have read my Book over and over of purpose in those parts that treat of this subject and can finde no such word as you here charge me with yet before I will lay such a thing to your charge I will suspect that it may possibly be in some odd corner where I overlookt it or cannot finde it But I see if I am not overseen how unsafe it is to report mens words themselves much more their opinions from the reports of another how Grave
read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith so as that it is his work 3. If you had yet Believing which is our work is not the same thing with giving Faith or moving us to believe which I say is Gods Work §. 56. Of the Life Promised and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other and thereupon move many and indeed inextricable difficulties What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen and what Death man should have dyed in case Christ had not been promised From which two endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes is to enquire what Scripture means by Life which is the good in the Covenant promised and what by Death which is the evil threattned Now for the first Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness to make man blessed in Soul and body All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes is comprised under it in Gospel expressions c. On the contrary under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde that tends to his misery in Soul and body The damnation of Hell being called death the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God Joh. 8.51 1 Joh. 3.14 Sin which leads to it and is the cause of it is called death in like manner Eph. 2.1 And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death sickness plagues are so called in like manner Exod. 10.17 Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant only indefinitely under that notion of Life without limit to this or that way of happiness in this or that place God is still at liberty so that he make man happy where or however to continue happiness to him and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven And therefore though learned Camero in his Tract de triplici faedere Thes 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace In the Covenant of Works which he calls nature Life was promised and a most blessed Life but an animal life in Paradise in the Covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and Spiritual And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification p. 5. saith That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradise is the opinion of most Divines Yet with submission to better Judgements I see not grounds for it seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde c. And indeed there are strong probabilities Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross and in Pauls vision c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate and I think sound I have nothing therefore to say to you but about our different expressions and therefore excuse me if I be short for I love not that work I think your judgement and mine are the same 2. Only remember that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works were for mans preservation in statu quo in that condition in which he was created to hold him in Communion with God which was his happiness he expected not to be bettered by his obedience either respective to happiness no more is promised then in present he had nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused by the exercise of obedience I shall not determine but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise so far Mr. Blake If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself and the work is done 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament naming and describing the work of Redemption I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria but in Via not in the highest perfection which he should expect but in the way to it But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in or in some other called Heaven upon a remove I take as Mr. Bl. doth to be unrevealed and undetermined in the Promise So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake expressed in these last words which he confuteth in me but that his former save me the labor 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point I also confess that the judgement of Camero Mr. Ball Mr. Gataker c. swayed much with me but the silence of the text in Gen. much more but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament as I ought which describing Redemption give some more light into the point The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion that the thing is indeterminate or at lest hard for us to know but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if as he saies the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness to make men blessed in soul and body by conducing to I suppose he meant constituting of then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness and then not to ours who have no greater natural capacitie or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory nor so great and full a fruition of God as Christ hath given us a sure hope of in the Gospel And therefore though he say God is at liberty for the place and way yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure 6. Observe that the words of mine which Mr. Bl.
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
Evidence of the great Principles and the Conexion I take yet for sound Doctrine The Scotists in opposition to the Thomists make much a doe on the question Virum Theologia sit Scientia And if properly Scientia it seems it must be evident Scotus lays down four things necessary to Science strictly and properly so called 1. Quod sit Cognitio cerâ—a i. e. sine deceptione 2. Quod sit de objecto necessario non contingente 3. Debet esse Causata à Causa Evidenti intellectui id est à principiis evidenter notis intellectui by which he saith Science is distinguished from Faith which is cognitio obscura aenigmaticaâ—â—â— inevidens 4. Quod hujusmodi principia seu causa ex terminis evidens intellectui debet applicari per discursum Syllogisticum bonum legitimum ad inferendam conclusionem and so Science is defined Notitia intellectualis certâ— Evâ—dens alicujus veri necessarii evidenter deducti ex princâ—pâ—is necessaâ—â—is prâ—us Evidenter notis Yet Rada saith the fourth of these is accidental And I see not but we have even such a rigid strict Science of the objects of Faith 1. It may be Notitia Intellectualis certa as all confess 2. And de objecto necessario Only let me add that when we make use of infallible Tradition de facto in proving the soundness of our Records that this was Contingens à priori yet is it necessary à posteriore necessitate existentiae and that as to the verity though it be contingent whether this or that particular man speak truth yet considering but the force of objects and common natural inclinations in determining the Will it may certainly be concluded that as to a whole Nation or World some voluntary actions are so Contingent as that yet they are of a most certainly discernable event Even men before hand may infallibly know that they will come â—o pass supposing the world to continue Rational As that all this Nation or all Europe will not famish themselves willfully and will not hang themselves c. is a thing that may as certainly be foreknown as if it were not Contingent much more may the Verity of such past actions be known 3. And that it may have evident principles shall be shown anon 4. And then that it is discoursive is clear Though Credere it self as it is the quieting and repose or confidence of the minde upon the authority or apprehended Veracity of the Revealeâ— is an effect of this discourse seeing siducia is not purely or chieflly an Intellectual act nor sidem alicui habere as it signifieth this repose Yet the Truth received on the Speakers Trust or Credit is received by the Intellect in a discoursive way Rada granteth these Conclusions 1. Theologia secundum se est verè propriè scientic 2. Theologia Dei respectu eorum quae funt necessaria secundem se est verè propriè scientâ—a 3. Theologia in beatis est propriè verè scientia quoad omnes 4. Conditiones scientiae Yet this eighth Conclusion is that Theologia prout est in nobis viatoribuâ— non est propriè strictè scientia And the great Argument to prove it is prout est in nobis est inevidens quia principia nostrae Theologiae sunt tantum Credita so that all the weight is laid on this inevidence Briefly my reasons for the Evidence of the Object of Divine Faith are these 1. If it be evident that Deus est Verax Deus haec testatur that God is true of his Word and that this is his Word or Revelation then Faith hath evident principles But the Antecedent is true therefore Into these principles we resolve all points of Faith Whatsoever God witnesseth is true but the Doctrine of the Resurrection judgment c. God witnesseth or revealeth therefore That God is true we have the same Evidence as that he is perfectly good and that is that he is God and that there is a God I take to be as evident a Truth as any in Nature to Reason though God himself be so far above our comprehension That this is a Divine Revelation hath also its evidence in evident miracles sealing it to the first witnesses and in Evidently Infallible Tradition delivering down to us the Records with the seals I doubt not to affirm that some humane Testimony affordeth such a Certainty as is unquestionable because of the Evidence of that Certainty as that King James was King of England c. and of the matter in question we have as great and in it self far greater But of this elsewhere 2. If Divine Faith give us a Certainty without objective Evidence then it is miraculous or contrary to nature or at least above it not only as rectifying disabled nature which I grant but as moving man not as man or the Intellect not as an Intellect which knows naturally no other Action but upon fit objects and what is wrought by them It knoweth no apprehension of truth but as it is apparent or evidenced truth To understand this Axiom to be true All men shall be Judged and to see no Evidence of its truth are contradictions 3. At lest it cannot be concluded in general that the objects of Faith are not evident to any in that they were evident not only to the Prophets and Apostles themselves but to all the Churches in that age where they wrought their miracles For as the formale fidei objectum viz. Veracitas Revelantis is evident to Nature and so to all that have not lost reason so that God himself was the Author or Revealer was evident to all them whose eyes and ears were witnesses of the frequent Miracles Languages and Gifts of the Spirit whereby the truth was then sealed by God 4. That which hath no Evidence cannot be Rationally preached to the world But the Doctrine of Faith may be Rationally preached to the world therefore Preaching hath a natural tendency to mens Conversion It is a shewing men the Evidence of Gospel Truth and the goodness of Gospel objects and so thereby perswading men to Believe the one and Love and Accept the other He that doth not praedicare Evidentiam veritatis Evangelicae doth not preach the Gospel in the first respect as he that preacheth not the goodness of Christ and his benefits doth not preach it in the other Preaching is not like Christs laying on clay and spittle which hath no natural tendency to open the eyes For the effect of Preaching as such is not miraculous no nor supernaturally otherwise then as the Doctrine preached being of supernatural Revelation may be said to be a supernatural Cause and so relatively the effect called supernatural though the same effect as proceeding from the Spirit which is a Concause or superior Cause may be truly called supernatural 5. That which may be discerned to be certain Truth without special or extraordinary Grace even by wicked men and Divels hath some evidence which causeth this discerning or belief