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
produce to teach the world that the only justifying act of faith is The Accepting of Justification as merited by Christs blood or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of I can finde no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition then this very doctrine which they have generally received though not in such exact terms aâ— it is taught them I never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinned their worst they still think to be saved because they believe And what is their beleeving why they beleeve that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation to Christs death and Gods mercy This were good if this were not all but if Christ were also received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher But if this were the only justifying act as they usually speak then I should not know how to disprove him that should tell me that all men in the world shall be saved that beleeve the Gospel to be true or at least the far greatest part of the most wicked men For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned and therefore Accept or are Willing of Christ to save them from damnation and I am sure they are Willing to be pardoned as fast as they sin and that is to be justified and therefore must needs be Willing of Christ to pardon them supposing that they beleeve the Gospel to be true What therefore shall I say if a wicked wretch thus argue He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I for I Accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore c Shall I tell him that he dissembleth and is not Willing Why 1. Long may I so tell him before he will beleeve me when he feels that I speak falsly and slander him 2. And I should know that I slander him my self Supposing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Christs blood as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell Shall I give him the common answer the best that ever was given to me that though the only justifying act be the receiving Christ or his Righteousness to justifie us yet this must be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign and a resolution to obey him Perhaps I may so puzzle him for want of Logick or Reason but else how easily may he tell me that this receiving Christ as Lord hath either the nature of a medium ad finem or not If it be no medium the want of it in this case cannot hinder the Justification of that man that is sure he hath the sole justifying act it self For as meer signs or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect so the want of them hinders not the effect where all causes and means are present But if I say that this act of faith is a means to Justification then I must either make it a Cause or a Condition or invent some new medium not yet known But you say Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Ans 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in stead of the Soveraign I say not that the reception of Christs Soveraignty doth â—ustifie those words may have an ill sense but we are justified by receiving Christ as our Soveraign which much differs from the former 2. Christ as Soveraign doth cleanse us both from the guilt and power of sinne by actual Remission or Justification and by Sanctification 3. Suppose you speak true as you do if you mean it only of Meriting our cleansing What is this to our Question But you adde Faith in his blood not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth justifie us Ans This is something to the purpose if it had been proved But will a nude and crude Assertion change mens judgements or should you have expected it A text you cite and therefore it might seem that you thought it some proof of this Rom. 3.24 But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition which who will take for good Exposition The text faith He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood And you adde Not through faith in his Command 1. Sed quo jure nescio Your exclusion is either upon supposition that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only or else it is on some mysterious ground which you should the rather have revealed because it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to discover it without your revelation If the former 1. By what authority do you adde only in your interpretation 2. Will you exclude also his Obedience Resurrection Intercession c When by the obedience of one many are made righteous and Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his Command but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher or either Receiving Christ as Ruler goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands And for the text Rom. 3.24 It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connotâ— both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what ex parte nostri but the former pâ—incipally I will explain my thoughts by a similitude or two Suppose a Rebell be Condemned and lye in prison waiting for Execution and the Kings Son being to raise an Army buyeth this Rebell with all his fellow prisoners from the hand of Justice and sendeth to them this message If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours and take me hereafter for your Prince or General and list your selves under me I will pardon you or give you the pardon which I have purchased and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army Here now if the Question be What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the prisoner It is his ransom as to the Impetration or Preparation and it is his free-Grant which doth it as to the actual Deliverance If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him But if you ask on the offenders part What it is that delivereth him as the condition It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ransomer that is the sole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death Nor is it the Accepting of the
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
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
the boldness to speak out its consequents and say Gods Word is the Believers wordâ— the Beleever enableth Gods Law of grace to forgive him The Law of grace is defective in power till the Beleever perfect it Credere non est actuâ— subditi vel Legatarâ—â— sed Rectoris Judiâ—is Testatoris Ergo Homo habet authoritatem seipsum Justificandi sibi ipsi condoâ—andi credendo hanc excâ—â—et authoritatem 8. Your strange proof is oft answered What though the Word without faith is no instrument Doth it follow that therefore either faith makes it an inâ—trument or is an instrument it self The King grants an Act of Oblivion or Pardon to a thousand Traytors on condition that by such a day they come and seek and thankfully accept it Doth their seeking or thankfull Acceptance give power and efficacy as an instrument to the Kings Pardon Or are the Pardon and Acceptance one compleat instrument Or is it more fit to call the Traytors Acceptance the instrument of his Pardon then the Kings Act Credat qui credere potis est Twisse saith An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem pecâ—â—torum esse effectionem fidei tametsi nisi credentibus contingat ista Remissio Dices fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendum Esto atque hac ratione dicatur effectio fidei sed â—u genere tantum causae dispusitivae Twiss Vinâ— Grat. l. 1. part 2. § 25. p. mihi 273. So he oft saith both of Faith and Works that they justifie only ut causae dispositivae and therefore in one kinde of causality and not as instruments properly so called §. 26. Mr Bl. THerefore to winde up this whole Dispute in which I have studied to be brief though I fear some will think I have been too tedious seeing that those that make faith the instrument in Justification make the Gospel an instrument likewise and dare not go about to strip it of its honour I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument will acknowledge faith to be an instrument in like manner being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned and so all the Controversie will be fairly ended and concluded Amen §. 27. R. B. 1. IF this be a Dispute I am none of those that think it too long I scarce finde a line in many Pages It is in my eyes so short that it seems as nothing 2. Your motion for decision will take when man is proved to be God then mans act of Beleeving may fairly share of the same honour with Gods act of Legal forgiving And yet then I shall demurre on the preferring it But till then I love Peace and Unity but not on such a compromising as to share the honour of the Redeemer with the redeemed of the Creator with the creature of the Sovereign pardoning with the Traytor pardoned 3. I like Amen better then Ergo and Herberts transformation I much applauâ—â— but not the substitution of Amen for a necessary Ergo. This â—imium 〈◊〉 disputandi genus that can prove all with a word an ipse dico and wipe off all that is opposed with a wet finger I never liked I must next take in what you adde afterwards §. 27. Mr Bl. Pag. 91. Obj. JT is said by another If faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace then it can be no instrument of our Justification If it be a condition in this Covenant it justifies as a condition and then it cannot justifie as an instrument and so I pull down what I build and run upon contradictions Answ I answer I should rather judge on the contrary that because it is a condition of the Covenant in the way as it is before expresâ— that it is therefore an instrument in our Justification God â—enders the gift of righteousness to be received by faith He Covenants for this faith for acceptation of it By beleeving theâ— we keep Covenant and receive Christ for Justification we as well do what God requires as receive what he tenders we do our duty and take Gods gift and thereby keep Covenant and receive life and so faith is both a condition and an instrument §. 27. R. B. BUt do you take officium and conditio to be all one I easily yield that we may do our duty in beleeving though it were an instrument But a condition is more then a duty yea then a duty to be performed for the obtaining of a benefit Cujacius saith Conditio est Lex addita negotio qua doâ—ec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post-facto confirmetur Or as Mynfinger Cum quid in casum incertum i. e. contingens qui potest tendere ad esse vel non esse conferiur And they are divided into Potestativas Casuales Mixtas Ours is of the former sort and I define it viz. the condition of the Covenant to be Actio voluntaria de fuâ—â—ro a Deo Legislatore Christo Testatore in neva Legâ— Federe Testamento requisita ut ex ejus praestaâ—ione constituatur jus actuale ad beneficium vel ut obligationem eventum suspendat donâ—â— praestetur For ex stipulatione conditionali neque obligatio â—eque actio ulla est anâ—equam conditio eveniat Quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Vt Myâ—sing in Iustâ—â— Schol. pag 5 â—â— â— You must consider that it is not de conditione contractus venditionis emptionis vel 〈◊〉 vel â—â—â—ationis or any the like that is propter preâ—ium but it is the condition 〈…〉 but somewhat partaking naturae Feudi as to sâ—me of the Benefits This being premised it is evident that faith cannot justifie both as a condition and as an instrument of Justification For 1. Either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect But it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different nearest causal interests To be an instrument of justifying is to efâ—ect it per modum instrumenti To be the condition is to be the causa sine quâ non which doth not effect but suspend the effect till performed It hath the name of a cause and sometime is ex materia a moral impulsive and sometime not but it hath the truâ— nature of such a medium ad finem as is no cause As faith cannot be both efficiens effecti effectum ejusdem â—ficientis nor be both the efficient and constitutive cause material or formal no more can it produce one and the same effect of Justification per modum instrumenti efficientis and per modum conditionis sine quâ non 2. Else you must feign the pardoning act to run thus I will pardon thee on condition thou wilt pardon thy self by beleeving as the instrument and not only on condition thou accept Christ 3. It belongeth to the pardoning instrument to conferre the right to the thing that
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
so others commonly must profess belief before they must be Baptized and the Scripture gives no hint that this is one kinde of Faith and that another Mar. 1.4 shews first in General what John did in the wilderness viz. Baptize and 2. in what order he did it viz. first preaching that Baptism of Repentance to them That 2 Pet. 1.3 is spoken in perfect Logical order It speaks not of Christs order of Execution and our order of Assecution but of Gods and our order of Intention If it had been said that he giveth us glory and vertue it had been a Hysteron Proteron but it is only he called us to glory and vertue And of ends the Ultimate is the first in Intention and all ends are so before their means and therefore may well be so in expression 2. I think as Baptism is truly Medium ad salutem so it may be said to be necessary necessitate medii as well as necessitate praecepti only with a distinction of necessitie according to its Degrees Faith is absolutely necessarie as sine qua non and Baptism is of an inferior less necessitie sometime but ad bene esse solemnitatem Lastly the command foregoing Disciple me all Nations Baptizing them setteth Faith in present or persons at age themselves before Baptism as included in Discipling And if this text which contains the Commission put not Faith before Baptism it s like others do not and then why may noâ— any Hâ—athens that will be baptized and the text speaks but of one faith for ought I can finde §. 48. Mr. Bl. 2. LEt Peter where he speaks of salvation by baptism interpret these words Baptism doth now also saith he save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and then explains himself Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God this answer or restipulation to the outward administration of Baptism is that which follows upon Baptism but Justifying Faith is that restipulation at least a principal branch of it and therefore there is no necessitie that it go before but a necessitie that it must follow after baptism It is true that in men of years Justifying saith sometimes goes before baptism as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necsesity required to Interest us in a Right neither of Baptism nor Circumcision §. 48. R. B. I Will not now stand to enquire of the fitness or unfitness of your term Restipulation as here used Varro useth Restipulari as being the same act as stipulari and Civilians use it but rarely In every stipulation they make two parties the Stipulator which is he that asks the question and the Promiser which is the answerer that obligeth himself Though rarely and unusually also the Promiser be called Stipulator But I suppose it is Responsio Promissoris that you mean by Restipulation and not another Interogation whereby a double stipulation is made supposing this your meaning I Reply 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof that this Restipulation is a thing following Baptism This is too dilute and easie disputing I took the contrary for an unquestionable truth The best Interpreters judge that Peter means here the Answer whereby the Promiser in Baptism did solemnly oblige himself which was to two Questions Credis in Patrem filium spiritum sanctum Credo Abrenuncias Diabolum mundum Carnem Abrenuncio And who knoweth not that these went before the application of the water of which more anon Doth not mutual consent expressed go before the sealing of the Covenant Doth Christ bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and would you have us do this before they profess their consent shall we Baptize them first and ask them whether they believe and consent after 2. I gratefully accept your Concession that Justifying Faith is that Restipulation Which is your minor that is Justifying Faith professed And thence I conclude that then Justifying faith is Essential to the mutual Covenant and so without it God is not thus in Covenant with men For who knows not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine Promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation and that this Restipulation is an essential part of the contract called stipulation This being past doubt it follows that Justifying Faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the contract or Baptismal Covenant And it is apparant that Peter meant not any other contract which was to be entered between God and man after the Baptismal Contract and different from it for then he would not have said Baptism saveth us and have interpreted it de fidâ responsione vel promissione non de nudâ lotione 3. The Concession which you were forced to about men of years how it doth cut the throat of your cause I shall shew you anon §. 49. Mr. Bl. OBj. 3. That faith to which the promise of Remission and Justification is made it must also be sealed to or that faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of the Title to the Seal But it is only solid true faith which is the Condition of the Promise of Remission Therefore it is that only that gives Right in foro Dei to the Seal Answ Here is an argument first proposed 2. in a parenthesis paraphrased For the proposition I say Faith is not sealed to but Remission of sins or salvation upon condition of Faith A professor of Faith that goes no further may engage himself to a lively working Faith and upon those terms God engages for and puts his Seal for Remission and salvation For the parenthesis That faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of Title to that Seal I judge the contrary to be undeniable that Faith which is the condition of the Promise is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal An acknowledgment of the Necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the Seal and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelitie in war is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded §. 49. R. B. 1. BOth Sacraments rightly used are a mutual Sealing to the mutual Covenant As in the Lords Supper Taking and eating is our Sealing professing action so in Baptism receiving the water applied is our Seal and professing Passion For we are more Passive in our new birth then in our feeding for growth So is the presenting our persons or our children of our delivering them up to Christ as his Disciples It is therefore our part as well as Gods that is Sealed to 2. Where you say A professor of Faith may engage to a lively working Faith you mean either a Professor of that lively faith or a
c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
Honour or of the Prince as one to honour him that is the sole condition of his Honour Nor is it accepting of Riches that is the sole condition of enriching him But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom that is the Condition of all together and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit as another Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman and the Prince having Ransomed her doth send this offer to her That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince to love honour and obey him he will deliver her and make her his Queen and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches Here now if the Question be What it is on his part that Redeemed her What that Delivered her What that honoured her What that enriched her each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause and the causes not confounded And she must distinctly apprehend by what way and cause each priviledge comes But if you ask only What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits Why it is but one entire undivided Condition before mentioned Will you here subtilly distinguish and say that her taking him to deliver her is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance and her taking him to Dignifie her is the sole condition of her Dignity and her taking him as Rich or to enrich her is the sole condition of her enriching No It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches that is the sole condition of enriching her Yet if any should in one Question include both What on his part did save her from death and what on her part then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text in our case It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer I should wrong you by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness if I should spend words in application of this to our case Having been so much too tedious already I will only adde That the common doctrine in this Point requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit and so one act of faith Justifieth another Adopteth c. And that act which receiveth Justification which they call the Passive instrument thereof in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam And so with them Credere Justificari must be Synonimall termes For so to receive Justification is nothing but to be Justified §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideon or Sampsons valour that were their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-tapt them and yet he was not thereby Justified as 1 Cor. 4.4 §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith An act of Justification If you speak properly you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè either that some act of faith is an act of Justification as the efficient but that 's farre from truth to beleeve and to justifie differ or else that it is an act constituting Justification But that is as far from truth for then Credere should be Justificari If you speak improperly you must mean either An act effecting Justification as it seems you do which is unsound as well as improper or else An act which is the Condition of Justification which is sound though improper 2. Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of Justification or not all of them The proper importance of your words is for the former But that is a dangerous untruth for vers 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith they saw the promises i. e. the good promised a farre off and were perswaded of them and embraced them c. But which soever you mean you should have proved your assertion It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification as begun But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification I do not think but that act by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification though it were the preparing the Ark being moved with fear I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous and that by which Enoch pleased God and without which it is impossible to please him had some hand in Justification I think these four great acts mentioned v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification 1. To beleeve that God is viz. that he is God the Chief Good the first and last the principal efficient and Ultimate End c. 2. The diligent seeking of him 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so 4. Coming to him If this be distinct from the second When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth from his praises 3. Yet you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideons valour acts of Justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith its true Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts and so you mean not the obedience valour c. but the act of faith which excited it then you might call those acts of justifying faith But if I had called valour and obedience so I should have been blamed 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification Do you think that any act of faith is Justification You mean if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine the instrument of Justification 5. But then how come you to say next that it is Christs blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which improperly may be called also the Matter of it But I think it is neither our Justification formally nor the instrument of it in proper speech 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been Which is the justifying act of faith and which not and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11.
or angry which side soever I take I am sorry that I have made you sorry but not for that Doctrine which caused it which yet I shall be as soon as I can see cause for it 2. Why would you not here attempt to prove that which you are so sorry should be denied viz. That faith is the instrument of Justification Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonstration of the errour of what you complain of 3. I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of Justification as you are that I deny it And as your sorrow urged you to publish it so did mine urge me And my sorrow had these causes which I am content may be well compared with yours that it may appear which were the juster and greater 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it 3. I thought it of dangerous consequence to say that man iâ— the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins 4. Yet all this had never caused mâ— to open my mouth against it for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels But for the next viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality but they laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference between us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification say they it is that they Fundamentally erre and we Principally differ And that in these four Points 1. About the formall cause of our Righteousness which say these Divines is the formall Righteousness of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde In the habitual Righteousness of his humane nature and others The natural Righteousness of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation herein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that Legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which Justifieth which say most of our forreign Reformers is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof I doubt not but all these four are great Errors Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists That which troubled me was this To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion when they finde that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause what wonder if they judge our Cause naught This is no fancy nor any needless fears but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause as will not easily be healed Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase and not made it so great a part of our Religion to the hazarding of the whole I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can finde them You begin with and say more for faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ You can say no more of me concerning this but that it will be scarce allowed to be so called This intimates that I make it no matter of contention nor do I know how I could have said less if any thing when it s only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention and not the sense which I thought with so much tenderness I might do upon reason given it being no Scripture phrase If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument They that say the Habit is the instrument speak not properly but far more tolerably then the others do If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul then so may other Habits And why is not this language more in use among Logicians if it be so unquestionably proper But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument for you answer only to what I say against that I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving in Answer to another Learned Brother which for the necessity of distinguishing here I would have added but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive Receiving in a Civil Ethical less proper sense is but the Act of accepting what is offered When it is only a Relation or Jus ad rem that is offered Consent or Acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession or proper Passive reception that it is therefore called Receiving it self yet is indeed no efficient cause of the Passive reception or possession but a conditio fine qua non and a subjective disposition and so makes the subject capable of the benefit but being no efficient it can be no instrument Yet still I say that if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase specially if some men had the same ingenuity as others have that say it is but instrumentum metaphoricum But to say that the act of faith is the instrument of Ethical Active reception which is it that I argued against is to say Receiving Christ is the instrument of it self Now let 's see what you say to this 1. You say It s too subtill a Notion That deserves no Reply 2. You say We use to speak otherwise of faith That 's no proof that you speak properly You say Faith is the eye of the soul and the eye is not sight Faith is the hand c. Ans 1. Strange proof not only by Metaphors but by metaphors of meer humane use 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the soul as distinct from sight and the hand as distinct from receiving Tell us then what actual seeing and receiving is To speak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Assertion Next you say Scripture speaks otherwise That 's to the purpose indeed if true You cite Act. 18.26 where is no such matter If By signifie an instrumentall cause It is either Alwaies or Sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies If but sometimes Why do you take it for granted that it so signifies here Why did you not offer some proof This is easie Disputing Next you say Why else is this Righteousness sometime called the
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick 2. If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progress and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology God bids men wash them and purifie their hearts and cleanse their hands and make them new hearts c. and Peter saith Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit c. 1 Pet. 1.22 And we must cleanse our selves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God 2 Cor. 7.1 with many the like 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon 4. When you say that Faith as an instrument receiveth righteousness to Justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration Their meaning as far as I can understand of the whole business is this 1. They conceive of Christs own righteousness wherewith himself was righteous as given to us 2. They conceive of the act of faith as the instrument of receiving this 3. Upon the receiving of this they conceive we are justified as a man that receiveth Riches is Rich or that receiveth Honour is Honourable 4. Because faith is the instrument of receiving righteousness therefore say they It is the instrument of Justification For Justification Constitutivè is but a relation resulting from righteousness received This is the summe of the common judgement of most that I have read But these things must be more accurately considered I think And 1. It must be known that the Righteousness given us is not the Righteousness whereby Christs person was Righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a Righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us 2. It must needs be known that the faith which is the Justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives us in Remission Remission or Righteousness may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but Righteousness or Remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of Justification or at least but a secondary remote object even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches but the Man though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband And as a Patient being promised to be cured if he will take such a man for his Physitian and wholly trust him renouncing all other Here it is not receiving Health or a Cure that is the proper Condition of the Cure Health and Cure is the end for which the Physitian is Accepted and Trusted but it is himself as a sufficient faithfull Physitian which is the object of that receiving which is the condition of the Cure The like may be shewed in other Relations of a Master and Scholar Prince and Subjects Master and Servants c. Receiving the persons into relation from whom we expect the benefit goes before receiving the benefit it self by them which is usually the remote end and not the object of that first reception which is the condition Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be A receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation as he is offered in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying Faith to be the Receiving of Justification or Righteousness 3. In my judgement it is a meer fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousness that we may be justified Constitutivè thereby in such a sense as if the righteousness were first to be made ours in order of nature before our Justification and then Justification follow because we are righteous and so these were two things For to receive Righteousness and to receive Justification is one thing Gods justifying us and pardoning our sin and his constituting us righteous and his giving us righteousness is all one thing under severall notions Yet as God giveth 1. Conditionally 2. Actually so man receiveth 1. Receptionè Ethica activâ figuratively called receiving 2. Receptione Physica propriâ passivâ The former goes before Justification but only as a small and secondary part of the condition if properly any it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the main condition The later is nothing at all but Justificari commonly called Passive Justification 4. Christs Satisfaction or Redemption solvend◠pretium and merit cannot be properly received by us For they are not in themselves given to us but as Tropically they may be said to be given to us because the fruit of them is given us It was not to us but to God that Christ gave satisfaction and the price of our Redemption And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christs satisfaction and merit as it doth our Justification thereby procured It is therefore the acknowledging of this Redemption Satisfaction or Merit and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit and not the receiving that Redemption or Satisfaction our selves To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christs Righteousness or of Justification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as satisfier from the justifying act and to exclude from that act his Redemption by bloodshed satisfaction and merit For if it be only the receiving of righteousness that is the justifying act then it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgement of his Satisfaction and Redemption by his blood and so they must say of these as they do of the reception of Christ as Lord that it is the fides quae justificat sed non quà justificans 5. If faith shall be said to be the instrument of Justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that Righteousness whereby we are justified then it will follow that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ eo nomine because it receiveth him and the instrument of our Adoption eo nomine because it receiveth Adoption and so the same act of faith which entitles us to Justification doth not entitle us to any other blessing nor that act that entitles us to Christ doth entitle us to Justification unless there be several justifying acts but every particular mercy hath a particular act of faith as the instrument of receiving it which is no Scripture doctrine 6. It must be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly is not Christ himself or his righteousness but the species of what is represented as its object And that faiths reception of Christ himself and his righteousness or of right to Christ is but Receptio metaphorica
nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive whether it be produced by the principal agent or not so it do but subserve that agent 2. If this proposition be true there is never an active instrument in rerum natura For Angels and men calor frigus and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects and they all receive activity and power from God Those that are most for passive instruments say calor is an active instrument But if I use fire to warm my beer or burn any thing this receives its activity and power from another and therefore must be no active instrument with you If there be no active instrument when I thought there had been no passive instrument I was fâ—r wide 3. But what mean these strange words of Activity and power received if the instrument be not active Is not the Potentia here meant Potentia efficiendi and is not all effection by action And is not the activity here mentioned an activity in causing What and yet no active instrument 1 Be not offended with me Dear brother if I confess that you and I differ in more points than one and in our Philosophy as well as Theology §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification and hath its power of working elsewhere §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too Is there any thing in the whole world that can mâ—râ— unfiâ—ly be called a passive instrument then the Covenant of Justification Why it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefiâ— Though it be but actione morali ut â—ignum â—â—lâ—ntatis donatoris The Debitum results from the Grant Deed of Gift Testament or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance as from its fundamentum proximum And is the fundamentum proximum Relatioâ—is a passive Instrument 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere that is from God but not from mans faith Farre be such a thought from my soul 3. I suspect by your words when you say the Word is produced and held sorth of God and by your discourse all along that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the â—oul as the Papists say and our Divines say It sanctifies or as it justifies in forâ— conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort But Sir I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but as it is Lex promulgata Faedus Testamentum and so doth convey Right or Constitute the dueness of the benefit This is the Record that God hath given us eternall Life and this Life is in his Son c. 1 Joh. 5.11 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given to us and thus the Covenant justifies as a written pardon under the Kings hand or an act of grace or oblivion doth pardon Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris vel Legis as distinct from Justificatio Judicis vel per sententiam I referre you to what I said in the cited place §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.32 But it is those that beleeve that are justified Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut siat potens efficax quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium with many more of the like which you make necessary to be enquired after And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new that I think never man printed before you for so far as I can learn at present That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace perhaps some before you have delivered but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying I think not any 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof If you do I desire your Reader may not do so What though only Believers are justified by the Covenant Doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie Then either there are no conditions or causes sine quibus non or else they all are efficientâ— and give efficacy and power to other efficients What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother and thank him for it to another if he be married by such a time to a third if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament No Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed Why is that Because all such instruments work morally only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time and but on such terms and so he frames the conditions himself as obices to suspend his Testament or
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
to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one Whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What faith justifieth Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as