or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo geneâ—e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded
many more Adversaries then you His work was published before yours and if you intended to publish no other doctrine How could you know that yours was like to blast your reputation with most Divines as in your Printed Letter you tell Mr. Tombs Pag. 409 When his work has mâ—ch advanc'd and not blasted his reputation at all In this Apology you tell me Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Protestant party in the doctrine of Jâ—stification aâ—quitting English Râ—form rs in one of them only And all except that one Davenant is as guilly as any The first is That the formall cause of our Righteousnesse is the formall Righteousnesss of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us And if this be an error no man is more chargeable then he with it He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Justit habit (a) Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae probatur The imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is proved to be the formall cause of our Justification Making it good in that Chapter by 11. Arguments and answering contrary objections Having confirm'd it with Arguments he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities And quoting Justin Martyr in the first place he thus comments upon him (b) Hic aptrtè doc et Justinus Martyr non modo mortem satisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam sed ipsam conversationem ejus seu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum Here Justin Martyr doth evidently teach that noâ— only the death and satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us to take away our punishment but also his conversation and active obedience is imputed to us to take away sin Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occasion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus The next error charged upon Protestants by you is about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteousnesse which the Divines say is by imputation And so Davenant says as we have already heard asserting against Bellarmine the greatest necessity as he speaks of it Pag. 32. Quoting against him Scriptures for it explaining Protestants meaning in it (c) Nos vero hâc imputatione justificationem sitam putamus non eo nomine solum quod Christus nos regit justitiâ suâ sed multò magìs quia donat nos justitiâ suà Neque dicimus Deum nos pro justis habere solummodo quia tectos conspicit justitia Redemptoris nostri sed quia ex sua ordinatione omnes credentes atque in unam personam cum Christo coalescentes justitiae ejus obedidientiae veré participes factos We think saith he that Justification is placed in this imputation not only because Christs covers us with his Righteousnesse but much rather because he freely conferrs his righteousnesse upon us Neither do we say that God accounts us as just only because he sees us Cloathed with the Righteousnesse of our Redeemer but because he sees by his own ordination all believers united into Christ as one person made truly partakers of his obedience But perhaps you are most offended with that which you put in the close of your Charge of this error upon Reformers That we are hereby namely by imputation of this Righteousnesse esteemed legaliter to have fulfilled the Law in Christ Which in your account is so high an error that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianisme And qâ—oting these words from a Reverend Brother whom sometimes at least you have had in high esteem That as in Christs suffering we were lookt upon by God as suffering in him So by Christs obeying of the Law we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him You appeaâ—e to youâ— Reader whether it be true or tolerable Yoâ— seem to think that the naming it is enough to work a deep dislike if not detestation of it And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he I am much mistaken See his third Argument for confirmation of his Thesis before mentioned Pag. 364. (d) Deus ex intuitu obedien 〈◊〉 per Christum praestitae usque ad mortem crucis nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis transgressoribus imputando nobis hanc alterius satisfactionem perinde ac si nostra fuisset Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Christum praestitae usque ad impletionem legis nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis observatoribus imputando nimirum nobis hanc alterius justitiam quasi etiam nostra esset God in beholding the obedience performed by Christ even to the death of the Crosse delivers us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law imputing this satisfaction of another to us even as though it had been ours Therefore in beholding the obedience of Christ yeelded even to the fulfilling of the Law he confers these benefits upon us which are promised to the observers of the Law that is by imputing to us this righteousnesse of another as though it were ours And much more to this purpose And afterwards further explaining himself he sayth (e) Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae satisfactionis Deus nos liberat ab ira poena quasi nos illam satisfactionem in propriis personis exhibuissemus Sic intuitu legis à Christo pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam proemium gloriae quasi nos nostrâ personali justitiâ legem implevissemus As upon sight of this imputed satisfaction God doth deliver us from wrath and punishment as though we had made satisfaction in our own persons So upon sight of the Law fulfilled by Christ for us he accepts us unto life and glory as though with our own personall Righteousnesse we had fulfilled the Law The third error which is charged upon Protestants is that from which English Reformers are acquitted The fourth is About the formall reason of faiths interest in Justification Which Protestant Reformers say as you observe from them is as the instrument This indeed Davenant doth not put to the question and purposely handle that I know as he does the former Yet we find him fully asserting it Answering Bellarmines objection that (f) Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum Quasi diceret Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae Luther made faith the formall cause of Justification he saith that Luther alwaies acknowledged it the instrumentall but not the formall unlesse under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith as though he should say that the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formall cause of our Justification Where we plainly see Davenants mind 1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ for justification is the instrumentall cause in it 2. That faith apprehends and applies this righteousness of Christ for
your self having in this very page said The condition is his that performeth it not his that imposeth it And I am sure that God imposeth and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance therefore they are not his conditions but ours You say There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe though he cause us to believe If you please to produce these reasons I shall he artily thank you I have said plainly enough that God causes us to believe denâ—'d that he is properly said to believe Your reasons then must needs be acceptable You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adversaries Jesuites Arminians All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of uâ—â—acts And I acknowledge the same and so far there is a â—aire and â—â—iâ—ndly accord Bâ—t you say I adventure a step farher and say that faith and repentance are mans work and not Gods To which yâ—u reply 1. What meane you then to yeeld afterward that God worketh all our works in us Those which he worketh are sure his work Answ What need you to aske that question when I there explaine mine own meaning Your â—râ—uâ—ent à conjugatis What God worketh is his work must have its due limits or else you will run into many absurdities God works our motion from place to place and yet he himself does not move The text it self by me quoted gives an answer Having asserted that God works them the denominâ—tion is still given to man God workâ— all our works in uâ— when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours I freely subscribe to that of Eâ—â—ius upon the words Deus omne bonum ac totum ab initio bonae voluntatis usque ad consummationem boni operis in nobis efficâ—citer operatur ordine sc causalitatis You â—dde I never met with any Orthodox Divine but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit and the Spirits work is doubtleâ—s Gods work Farther telling me If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants you must acknowledge that God is the Physicall Efficient Praedeâ—ermining Principall Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtlesse of our Faith and that both immediatione virtutis suppositi So that it is more properly his act then ours Here you furnish me with an answer Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants I should ascribe all in every act to God yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper sense but by a Metonymie of the cause He works them because he work us for the acting of them and so I explained my self We are his workmanship fitted and prepared for good works Christ was the principall efficient when he raised Lazarus yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise Concerning acts of this nature that we are upon I believe that Quod voluntas agit liberè agit interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum sed per gratiam liberata libera in radice non in termino Homo denuò natus vult perficit quod est bonum Deus autem operatur velle perficere ordine sc causalitatis You professe your self of Bp. Davenants mind who saith As for the predetermination of mens wills it is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuits with whose Metaphysicall speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains or at least should not Declaring your self that you take it to be a poynt beyond the knowledge of any man which way God works on the will in these respects I much marvaile then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it You tell us that if you must incline to any way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola who yet you say hath more then you have seen well answered And yet perhaps à Dola in case he had seen your arguments would have judged his as strong as yours Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them when all others that you have seene have been wanting So farr as I have looked into the Author I see him a man of much modesty and one in whome reason is not wanting though I will not undertake to declare either with or against him When I say Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us and so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God You reply Both velle and perficere are the gift of God and not only posse velle perficere To which I say I had thought that Power for action had included that wnich you say and not denyed it namely a powerfull inclination of the will to the work Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Psal 110.3 The will is still mans when grace has wrought him up to it I had thought there had been no such danger in Paules words Phil. 4.13 I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me You conclude that I have not confuted your answer namely to your Quaerists question when indeed I never intended it and if I would now go about it I need not finding it as I think done to my hand You give in your reason 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first speciall Grace Answ You say no more of this in your reply to your Querist that I can find but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and that you think we may call it an absolute promise when you had said before that they are meer gratious predictions 2. These supposed promises as you say in your answer are not within the proper conditionall Covenant and therefore I had nothing to do with it 2. You further say that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith so as that it is his work Answ I do not find that in all your answer and you most unfairely make the title of this Section to be Whether Faith and Repentance are Gods works My businsse was against your Querist affirming them to be Gods conditions not ours 3. You say If I had yet Believing which is our work is not the same with giving faith or moving us to believe which is Gods work Answ This I confesse You did not affirme it before that I know and I yeeld it now The former is ours viz. to believe the latter Gods viz. to give Faith or move us to believe A mighty proofe sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended because I have gainsayed what your answer never asserted For that wich I intended not against you but as I thought for you That Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods I thus further argue Arguments evincing that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditionall Covenant
Rome in it Page 227 Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith and how before circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions laid down Page 29 c. Infant-Baptisme Severall benefits of it Page 185 c. See Baptisme Infirmities Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page 392 Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid. Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page 393 Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid. See Sin Institution A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page 58 Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly usefull Page 59 All Sacramentall rites must be of divine institution Instrument Faith The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page 437 Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith as in other actions so in justification Page 444 Whether the action of the principall cause and of the instrument in Morall operations is alwayes one Page 445 The unanimous consent of Protestant writers that Faith is an instrument ibid. c. Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page 438. 464 Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page 441 Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ Page 443 Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished Page 448 Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page 460 It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page 448. 487 The grant of the New Covenant is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page 466 Concauses instrumentall have efficacy one from another Page 470 Instruments Cooperative or Passive Page 474 Whether the word be a passive instrument or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid. An instrumentall effiâ—iency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page 486 Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 485 Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page 628 c. See Faith Justification The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a reall Page 447 God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page 449 In justification of man God acts not without man Page 446 Quaeres put in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumentall in the work of justification Page 478 Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page 489 Justification by Gospell grant and by the sentence of the Judge how they differ Page 556 557 Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse Page 558 The Father appoints the termes of justification and salvation Page 559 Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page 576 Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme Page 163 c. Severall arguments vindicated Page 120 c. Exceptions examined Page 143 Additionall arguments to prove it Page 161 Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page 135 136 None able to Baptize if justifying faith onely give admission Page 160 Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Objections answered Page 262 K. Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page 500 Knowledge distinguished Page 501 See Ignorance L. Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Law Morall Arminians Socinians and Papists oppose the perfection of the Morall Law Page 601 Authorities of Protestant writers for the perfection of the Morall Law Page 602 Arguments evincing the perfection of the Morall Law Page 603 Objections answered Page 605 There is no sin that is not condemned in the Morall Law Page 603 In what sense the preceptive part of the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page 605 c. Actions are denominated good or bad from the Law onely Page 613 Men are denominated really and not equivocally righteous that imperfectly obey the Morall Law Page 614 The Law commanding duty and the end of the duty are not opposite but subordinate Page 614 Law nature What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page 24 No Sacraments appointed of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. Scripture silence a probable argument Page 26 Jesuites arguments herein examined ibid. The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and as used by Christ whether they differ Page 600 Leiturgy Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page 308 Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. c. 1. As to the work it self Page 308 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page 309 Life What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page 11 Not barely an animall life ibid. c. The tree of life had not any naturall power to answer its name Page 12 Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The position at large discussed Page 555 c. Lords Supper See Sacraments Supper Lunatick Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 M. Man His first originall is in sin Page 363 Arguments evincing it Page 364 In mans restitution his nature must be healed and his guilt removed Page 366 The healing of his nature and the removall of guilt is the work of Christ Page 366 Manna Whence it hath its name Page 523 The time it continued with Israel Page 524 Miraculously provided ibid. A fable concerning it ibid. Of a Sacramentall nature Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Meanes Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page 17 Objections answered Page 17 18 Mediatour See Christ Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page 572 Marriage The Matter Page 540 Form Page 540 Minister Page 540 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 541 Minister Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page 251 Inconveniences objected against it answered Page 262 A Ministers prudence in this work to see with more eyes then his own Page 272 Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid. To make scrutiny into mens knowledge with all tenderness Page 273 Not to refuse but upon known crimes ibid. When he cannot in this do what he would he is to do what he is able Page 274 Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministeriall function Page 277 Whether Ministeriall dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page 277 c. Gospell order transgrest when Sacraments are not dispenced by a Ministeriall hand Page 278 Doctor Abbots and Mr. Hookers judgement in it ibid. Mixt. Lawfull to communicate in mixt congregations Page 314 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Morall Perfection or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page 592 Duties naturally Morall bind all Page 195 Where a positive command is given there is a Morall tye to obedience ibid See Law
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein 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 justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he 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 young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
these words I know you had not leisure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply then barely to fill paper In contentions of this nature it is easie for great wits voluble tongues and nimble pens to be more then vain And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period and so render them to the Reader That my meaning cannot be seen till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needlesse triflings 2. If Mr. Baxter know as he sayes that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames without so much as colour of sense in it which were vain to repeat what was his end but meerly to fill up paper or somewhat worse in framing of it A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatise and not as mangled by his divisions may easily see another way of argumentation and such that carries sense and I leave to the Reader whether or no it carries strength And for his satisfaction Tht Authors argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace as instrument in justification I thus put it into forme That which often failes of obtaining the end for which it is employed and never can attain to it without the concurrence of some other with it is no sole instrument in any work But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of justification when it is to that end published and imployed and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joyned with it Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing and have the same aptitude to produce the effect even when it is not applyed I answer then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter and is no instrument in actual being but when the end is obtained and then it is no sole instrument being not sole in producing the effect Mr. Baxter takes it for granted that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed and I took it for granted that it is often employed and the effect not produced but I did not then think that Mr. Baxter had meant an application to convey right where right is already in possession I added When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation and the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death and so comes short of justification To this is replyed 1. So it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of justification I grant his first and he threapes kindnesse with me in the two last he will have me to speak of the threat onely when I speak as well as he of Gods grant or promise Gospel promises are a savour of death to many This is a savour of death unto death unto many It is as great an evil to sleight a Promise as to disobey a Command or neglect a threatning his third therefore migt well have been spared but that I intend not to trifle away time I could easily shew him if I had spoke of threat a great disparity I added which should not have come in thus dismembred The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred To this is replyed Darkly but dangerously spoken and reasons given For it is possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax and so I grant the sense There is no possiblity that I should mean so having sufficiently as he after observes declared my self to the contrary if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings which men eminently learned professe they do not It followes Dangerously for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith and that faith renders it efficacious not by infusion of any new power into it but raising up the soul with strength to answer it which is not barely said but proved But my bare speech must first be censured and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure as we shall see dealt with A reason is rendred why for the truths sake and my own these words have never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another The thred hath efficacy from a needle and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent or to make a seam or hem The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone fetch up a needle from the bottome of a vessel of water Here the hand is the principall agent or the man using his hand The knife is the instrument yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone as a concause instrumental The Gospel works no more without faith then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone It followes 2. If it were the former that is meant yet it were intolerable For which reasons are given but how these hang together I know not His former now spoken to was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them and this which is in order the second is to shew by three reasons that in case they be taken in the first sense which he himself professedly grants yet it were intolerable seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense and if I did he grants the sense there is no cause that I should trouble my self with his Reasons I added in way of proof Heb. 4.2 Unto us was the Gospel preached c. 1 Thess 2.12 13. To which is replyed But where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your cause I must speak nothing it seems but syllogismes in form and he that cannot here make up a syllogisme and find out a formall conclusion is a very Infant in Logick In the first Text the Apostle as he sayes speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the soul and our question is of the relative Heb. 4.2 Vindicated And what shew of proof is there that it is
of Tertullian Cyprian and Austine If so then the doctrine of merit in the highest way as it is now taught in the Châ—â—â—â— of Rome was delivered by the Fathers the oppositioâ—◠〈◊〉 is as notorious a novelty as this of the instrumen◠〈◊〉 â—f Faith or justifying act by you is pretended How high Aquinas is for merit as also his followers all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see And in case in this time a change intervened and a new way be introduced you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion even Lombard himself was not the same man as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him 2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome since that time that closeth up your account viz. ann 1400. to this day As I take it their doctrine is substantially the same now as it was in Aquinas his age and some time before him The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing that their Doctors had of severall ages held And though they put upon it their sanction yet they made no sensible variation as they expresly declare themselves Sess 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome rigidly adheres to it It being therefore the same for 1400. years time as the most Antient Fathers taught yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered as afterwards you take the boldnesse to assert and the same now as it was then The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same as Christ and his Apostles left it Being faithfully kept by Fathers Schoolemen determined by the Council of Trent now maintained by Jesuites their adhaerents This is too clearly by you implied If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt see how much you dissent from your learned friend Mr. Gataker where he tells you in his second letter of that great difference that is between us and the Papists in the Dâ—ctrine of Justification As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of Justification which you speak as you say being so informed and I believe you have heard as much For many years before his death I heard it from an eminent hand and acquainted Mr. Ball with it who with much â—xpression of trouble of Spirit that it should be so voyced disclamed if and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith not then published and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 â—nt hath given to the world sufficient testimony agains◠〈◊〉 â—his bâ—uit perhaps gave occasion to that which Mr. Cranâ—â— â—nconsidâ—rately vented and you have so praise-worthily vindicated and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge as being an ear witnesse should be added 3. Whether the Fathers that you mention and others their contemporaries that you do not name were so distinct as might be desired in and about the word Justification and other words of concernment touching this controversie Though as to the thing it self they speak according to the Scriptures when thâ—y speak of Justification Reconcilliation Remission yet so farr as I have read find in the observation of others they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together which you declare your self at least to dislike in others making it not verbum forense as you yeeld it is but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteousnesse whereby we are not pronounced and acquitted as just upon the merit of Christ which otherwise they orthodoxly own but habituâ—lly so and therefore so denominated Being said to be Justified because of unjust we are made just which is the work of Sanctification and implies a reall and not a relative change such as is found in Justification And if some termes of theirs need amendment upon further inquiry into this doctrine then why not others 4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith or Faith in Christ quà Lord not to be the justifying act or the thing it self that you intend in that so large challenge of yours If it be the want of the words only instrument or quà Lord that you mention your charge is very low upon severall accounts 1. Words of art of this nature are seldome found in the Fathers There are few discourses in them about causes whether Efficient Finall Materiall Formall Instrumentall neither are there any so exact logicall distinctions under what notion they take that which they are upon in their writings Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen and little use made of them as I think before Lombards daies Protestant writers finding them in the Church are necessitated to make use of them as well that their adversaries may understand them as with their own weapons to deal with them And the Schoolemen having found another instrument in Justification viz. Baptism as appears â—y the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 6. Cap. 7. it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all that these do not so use it as it ought according to Scriptures 2. You would be I doubt not as much wanting in making proofe of the use of your own termes among the Fathers as your adversaries of theirs we may find the word instrument and the restrictive particle quà in your twenty six Fathers ascribed to Faith in Justification as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non or as I think your conditio cum quâ We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua and fides quà which you make the generall cheat as often as you can find your distinctions already examined which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together When you challenge the words of others as novel it lies upon you to assert the antiquity of your own If it be the thing it self that you challenge as not found in any Authors in this Compasse of time I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation as B. Jewell was in the defence of his that he published at Pauls Cross I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith and the whole of it that the Protestant Churches make the instrumentall work and that they assigne the same specificall object of Faith in the work of Justification as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted 5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers by you mentioned have purposely treated upon particulary spoken to this doctrine of Justification and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled that they that do not know it may turn and read it I have a considerable part of those that you mention though some