c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
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
to us it is strictly taken nor had I used the term Condition as to God but as it was necessary to satisfie the Objector who so called it intimating the improprietie of it Also I did plainly shew that the thing called Gods Condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and Repenting Gods is the bestowing of these as the Question expressed or the giving us new and soft hearts that we may do it our selves and do it readily and willingly c. as I expressed pag. 46. because I was not willing to meddle affirmatively or negatively with the question of Gods immediate Physical Efficiencie of our own act yet I doubt not but God doth truly powerfully and effectually to the removing or overcoming all resistance move the Soul to the act it self and therefore it may truly be said that not only Gods own Action but also our action of Believing is the thing promised called his Condition by the Querist and though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Blakes Treatise This much being premised I Reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute Promise as well as a Conditional till you give me better Reasons of your denyal or your Questioning whether Scripture will bear it And I shall yet say that the giving of our Faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise For your Argument to the contrarie hath little in it to compell me to a change Your Maior is Whose acts they are his conditions they are instead of proof you say This is evident I Reply 1. Negatively it had been evident de Actione qua talis that it is no ones Condition but his that performs it as the condition is said to be his that performeth and not his that imposeth it But Affirmatively the proposition holds not universally Nor Negatively speaking de Actione qua est quid donandum To your Minor I could better answer if I could have found it I expected it should have been this But our Faith and Repentance are not Gods acts But I know not whether I may be so bold as say you will own that Before you say This rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours where 1. you cautelously speak the two Propositions copulatively and 2. you put in the word formally which may do much to help you out For the former it is enough according to your own Rule to prove them Gods Conditions and ours if they be Gods Actions and ours for you say Whose actions they are his Conditions they are that is evident It is not therefore necessary that I prove them Gods and not ours 2. It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form If the former action is the form it self it is harder to finde out its matter Accidents have not properly matter and form but the subject is called its matter but Action hath scarce so proper a subject as other Accidents have seeing it is rather Agentis then in agente inhaesivè Of transients it s beyond doubt and I think so of Immanents unles we may with Scotus take them for Qualities If you speak of Moral formality were it sinful Action I should deny God to be the Author but of Faith and Repentance I dare not do so I think God is the Author of them formally as well as materially But in your following words you say But they are our acts c. God believes not c. Reply 1. To believe is our act but to give us Faith or to move us effectually to Believe as a superior Cause this is not our work but Gods 2. Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods 3. There are sufficient reasons why God is not said to Believe though he cause us to believe If you go on the Predeterminants grounds I suppose you know their reasons who take notice of the Armenians making this objection If you enquire of the Jesuits and Arminians that go the way of determined concourse or of partial Causality they think they have yet more to say of which I suppose you not ignorant Durandus his followers think they have most of all to say both why God should be said to believe and why he is not the Author of our sin in that they suppose that he causeth not the act immediately And yet all these acknowledge God to be the cause of our acts But you adventure a step further and say Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods Works Reply 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that God worketh all our works in us those which he worketh are sure his works And that It is God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed. 2. I never met with any orthodox Divine but would yield that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit And the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work 3. If you go the common way of the Predeterminants you must acknowldge that God is the Physical Efficient Predetermining Principal Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtless of our Faith and that both Immediatione Virtutis Suppositi so that it is more properly his act then ours For my part I confess my self of Bishop Davenants minde who saith against Hoard p. 116 As for the predetermination of mens Wills it is a Controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites with whose Metaphysical speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains Or at leâ—t they should not I take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man which way Gods works on the Will in these respects Though if I must encline to any one way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then I finde in Ludov. à Dola who yet hath more then I have seen well answered and lest of all to the Predeterminants for all the numerous arguments of the Dominicans and the seeming strength that Dr. Twisse Heerebâ—ord Rutherford and others of our own do adde to their cause But yet I am far from denying our Faith and Repentance to be Gods Works for I doubt not but he causeth them ut causa Vniversalis by his general Providence as they are natural Actions and also by his special effectual Grace contra omnem Resistentiam infallibly causeth them as they are the special gifts of the Spirit So that I marvail that you should say they are not Gods Works In the conclusion you adde Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the frame into which Grace puts us so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God Reply Both Velle Perficere is the gift of God and not only Posse Velle perficere Why should I trouble the Reader to say any more to that point when Dr. Twisse and others against the Remonstrants have said so much and Austin so much before them all And yet I never
or 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
not believe you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of sin who dye This is the part of the penalty which the sentence passed on the offendor himself for all the promised satisfaction by a Redeemer Nor did the Redeemer satisfie to that end to prevent our death or to cause that it should not be the wages of sin but to deliver us from under the power of it Where you say that this way of God with unbelievers is voluntary not necessitated I Reply So it may be nevertheless because it was meant in the threatning It is dangerous to imagine that God is ever the less free or more necessitated so as that his actions should be less voluntary because of his determinations He doth as voluntarily do what he hath predetermined to do and foretold he will do as if he had done neither God changeth not and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution as he was in the determination §. 59. Of the Law as made to Christ Mr. Bl. CHap. 6. p. 25. And though Mr. Baxter doubts whether it be any part of Gods Legislative Will as it referrs to Christ but only as it belongs to us as a Prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom and so of us Append p. 39. Yet me thinks it is plain seeing Christ acknowledges a command from his Father in laying down his life Joh. 10.18 and the Apostle speaking of the work saith He was obedient in it c. §. 59. R. B. ONe that had not read what I write would think by your Answer that I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Christ at all or not Whereas I spake only of that called the Covenant between the Father and the Son made from Eternity or the promises expressed by the Prophets as to Christ in his meer Divine nature not yet incarnate For I conceive that Christ before the incarnation may not be said to be a subject and that God is not properly said to command himself or covenant with himself or make promises by Prophets to himself But I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of special use and if well done would do much to remove the stumbling blocks which the Antinomians fall upon §. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional Promise absolutely or the conclusion conditionally when only one of the Premises is of Divine Revelation And whether this conclusion be de fide I am Justified and shall be saved Mr. Bl. p. 38. BVt that which I may not pass is somewhat of concernment both to my self and the present cause in hand c. §. 60. R. B. I Need not transcribe these words being of another and not spoke to me But I will pass my conjecture to his questions 1. I conjecture that the Querist by Evading meant Owning and Justifying the fact and so evading the blame 2. To the second I conjecture the Querist had been lately conversant in Mr. Blakes book and so it was in his memorie and whether he knew what those whom you mention do hold I cannot tell 3. To the third If by Sacramental sealing you mean Conditional sealing I conjecture his conceit might be this that as the Promise may be conditionally tendred to Infidels Murderers or any other so might the Seal if it were but Conditional as the Promise As we may say to the worst If thou wil◠believe thou shalt be saved so might we conditionally seal salvation to him But I take this to be a great mistake §. 61. Mr. Bl. p. 40. MR Baxter who is put to it to stoop too low in the answer of such trifles in his answer to this now in hand hath taken much pains to finde out the way of the Sacraments sealing and in the result he and I shall not be found much to differ yet seeing providence made me the occasion of starting the question I shall take leave to take some view of what is said Mr. Baxter saith It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal Absolutely or Conditionally till you first know what is that they do seal and in order to the finding this out he layes down the way that a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation which is thus He that believeth is Justified and shall be saved but I believe therefore I am Justified and shall be saved I confess if I had been put upon a discovery of that which is sealed in the Sacraments this Syllogism I think would scarce have come into my thoughts seeing the Seal is Gods as Mr. Baxter observes I should have rather looked for one from him then to have supposed a believer to have been upon the frame of one §. 61. R. B. THis dispute is so confused and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it let men have made what use of yours they pleased but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by in your handling it I think your meaning and mine is the same 1. I not only said as you express that the Seal is Gods but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism as well as another 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making why did you not tell us when or where you found it and let us see as well as you whence you had it that we may know God made it God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself nor actu immanente if he do it it is only for us per actum transeuntem and then it may be found in his word But more of that anon 4. I should think though for illustration I judged it not unuseful that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all in the enquiry after the sealed proposition If it be but one proposition we may express it alone If more we may distinctly express them rather then that shall breed any difference I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more Let us see what yours is §. 62. Mr. Bl. ANd such a one I should have looked to have gathered up from the Institution and thus I conceive framed He to whom I give Christ to him I give Justification and Salvation But here I give thee Christ therefore to thee I give Justification and Salvation §. 63. R. B. 1. WHat mean you by gathering it Do you mean that you will read it there ready formed If so shew us the Chapter and Verse But that must not be expected for you say anon that it is something not written that is sealed
the other of sense and knowledge yea that it will hold in matters of Faith both fundamental and superstructive §. 74. R. B. 1. IT was not this according to your limitations that was said to be a gross mistake but as applyed to ordinary Believers though my reasons make against both 2. You deal more easily to your self then fairly with me in your entred Dissent 1. I said meerly Credenda as confessing it is partly of Faith and partly of knowledge as the Premises are and you leave out meerly and put in Crendenda alone as if I denyed it to participate of Faith 2. I denyed it therefore to be a proper object of Faith that is a meer Credendum or Divine Testimony acknowledging that it may be participative and partially and less properly called an Object of Faith and you leave out properly and only affirm it an Object of Faith of what sort soever in general 3. I have answered this sufficiently in telling you my opinion i. e. The Conclusion still partakes of the nature of both Premises and therefore when one is de fide and the other naturaliter revelatum vel cognitum there the Conclusion is not purely either supernatural or natural de fide or ex cognitione naturali but mixt of both That it s truly a Conclusion following those Premises is known only by Rational discourse and is not de fide but that it is a true Proposition is known partly naturally partly by supernatural Revelation which is that we mean when we say it is de fide But because it is fittest in our common speech to give this Conclusion a simple and not a compound Denomination for brevitie sake therefore we may well denominate it from one of the Propositions and that must alwaies be a parte debiliore And therefore when it is principia naturaliter nota that make one proposition or sensible things or what ever that is more evident then the truth of the Proposition which is of Divine Testimony there it is fittest to say The Conclusion is de fide or of supernatural Revelation As when the one Proposition is that there is a God or I am a man or God is Great or Good or True But when the other Proposition is less evident then that which is of Divine Revelation then it is fittest to say that the Conclusion is such as that Proposition is and not properly de fide For the Conclusion being the joynt issue of both Premises as its parents or true Causes it cannot be more noble then the more ignoble of them This explication of my opinion is it that I referr you to as the substance of my answer to all that follows §. 75. Mr. Bl. WHen Fisher the Jesuite told Dr. Featley that it was solid Divinity that a Conclusion de fide must necessarily by inferred out of two Propositions de fide Dr. Goad being present as Dr. Featleys Assistant interposed in these words I will maintain the contrary against you or any other That a Conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise evidently and infallibly true by the light of Reason or experience giving instance in this Conclusion Christus est risibilis which he said and truly was de fide though both Propositions whence it is inferred be not de fide Omnis homo est risibilis is not a Proposition de fide or supernaturally revealed in Scripture yet thence the Conclusion follows in this Syllogism Omnis homoest risibilis Christus est homo therefore Christus est râ—sibilis which is a Conclusion de fide affirming that Melchior Canus had judiciously handled and proved this tenent which he said he could otherwise demonstrate to be infallible To whom Dr. Featley assents second Daies dispute pag. 85. It were casie to frame many such Syllogisms If an Heretick should affirm that Christ had only a phantastick body in appearance only how would you prove the contrary but with this Syllogism He that is truly man hath a true body and not a phantastick body only This is a Position in reason Christ is truly a man this is a Position de fide in Scripture whence follows the Conclusion de fide that Christ hath not a phantastick body If one should deny that Christ had a reasonable soul affirming that his body was informed by the Dietie instead of a Soul must it not be thus proved Every true man hath a reasonable Soul Christ is a true man and therefore Christ hath a reasonable Soul The Citie that ruleth over the Nations of the earth and is seated on seven hills is the seat of the Beast This is a Scripture Proposition But that Rome then ruled over the Nations of the Earth and was seated on 7 hills we know by History and Geography Whence the Conclusion follows that Rome is the seat of the Beast Abundance of these may be framed where the Proposition opposite to the Conclusion is either an Heresie or at least an error in Faith The Conclusion is of Faith Disputing against the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation to hold up the Orthodox Faith we are necessitated to make use of maximes of known reason If they were denyed us the new Crew now start up that deny all consequences from Scripture and will have none but Scripture words had here a notable advantage This Argument well followed would put Mr. Baxter himself to a great loss in some of his Arguments for which yet I give him thanks to prove that the Scripture is the word of God §. 75. R. B. THis is fully answered before even in my last Section 1. Dr. Goâ—d saith but the same that I say only I distinguish 1. Between that which is purely de fide and that which is only denominated de fide as the more debile of the Premises In the latter sense the Doctors conclusions are de fide in the former not 2. When a Conclusion is denyed to be de fide it may be meant either as a Diminution of its evidence or as magnifying its evidence above that which is purely de fide or as equaling it thereto When I say this Conclusion is not de fide A. B. is Justified and shall be saved I speak it by way of Diminution of its evidence and authority And I confidently speak it and doubt not to maintain it But when I deny this Conclusion to be simply or purely de fide I R. B. shall rise again I distinguish nothing of the evidence or necessity of it And when I thus argue Omne quod sentit ratiocinatur est Animal Ego R. B. sentio ratiocinor therefore ego sum Animal though I say that here the Conclusion is not de fide yet I intend thereby to extoll it for evidence above that which is de fide And when I affirm this Conclusion to be de fide I R. B. shall rise again as denominated à parte debiliore I do speak it in Diminution of its evidence in