bee more expresly cleared I could not divine and had liberty to use my own method This onely I know that inclinations to sin are there exprest to bee sins and that clearely enough that hee may discerne it who hath so much leisure from quarrelling as to bewaile them And indeed you need not tell me what dangerous consequences have been inferred from doubtfull expressions in Catechismes c. For I have an example before mine eyes of one that will inferre those consequences from one word in such a Booke that the whole sense of the place contradicts directly as much as sin and no sin are contradictories and then 't is but reason a man were allow'd pardon and not triumph'd over presently for being willing when 't is by anothers fault become so necessary to explaine And so much for the third report The fourth that about faiths being whether a condition or instrument of Iustification I cannot observe by your words that you have at all insisted on in either assembly for though you deny it not yet also you affirme nothing as in the two former which you owne and as in the last you are pleased to doe Either then you spake to this particular and then although it bee a fault in you not to acknowledge it yet till I am sure of it and that my reputation is concerned in it I have no reason farther to importune you or else you did not speake to it and consequently did mee no injury in that particular and then I truly cannot accuse you having no authority that you did worth my depending on and that which I had contradicted by others as the other of the Trinity which proved untrue and so the rather inclines mee to beleeve that this is so also On these grounds I have no temptation to adde more to this matter because the whole businesse which brought us now together was to vindicate my selfe from and that made it necessary for me to know what had been your accusations and not to render you at this time which I can spend much more profitably to my selfe and others an account of my faith save onely where you have calumniated it Yet because it is possible that the questions here proposed by you may through some mistake or ignorance of the grounds that I goe on bee matter of some scruple to you and it may bee my duty to prevent those mistakings I have now thought fit to tell you what is the generall ground that I build on in this matter by analogy to which you may forme an answer to those questions and reconcile those seeming differences which you may have taken notice of My grounds are these 1 That justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sin 2 That the mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification 3 This worke of justification is of such a nature consisting meerly in Gods pronouncing us just accepting and pardoning a worke of God without us upon us concerning us but not within us that consequently nothing within us can have any reall proper efficiency in this worke for then that whatever it is must bee said to justifie i. e. to accept and pardon which nothing in us can be said to doe though but minus principaliter secundario or realiter instrumentaliter for if it had any such efficiency there might in strict speaking be some reall vertue or force in that thing and that proportionable to the effect in some measure at least it must act virtute primae causae and by the impulsion of that might immediately produce the effect which any even grace as it is in us hath not force enough to doe For either it must doe it as an inferiour meritorious cause subordinate to Christs merits or as an inferiour efficient cause subordinate to Gods pardoning and accepting and then as I said that must pardon and accept also immediately though not principally as the knife cuts immediately though the hand or the man principally 4 This work of grace in God through Christ thus justifying is not every mans portion some qualification or condition there is required in the subject in the person whose sinnes God will thus pardon in Christ or without which God that justifies the sinner will not yet justifie the impenitent infidell the promises of God though generall being yet conditionall promises and the promise of pardon being one of them as shall be proved at large if you thinke fit 5 This condition is set downe in severall phrases in the Scripture Conversion Repentance Regeneration but especially receiving of Christ faith in the heart an embracing of Christ the whole Christ taking him as our Priest whose sacrifice and whose intercession to depend on as our King whose throne to bee set up in our hearts as our Prophet to submit our understandings to his doctrines and captivate them to the obedience of faith 6 This grace of faith hath mauy excellent offices and efficiencies one principall one laying hold on the promises laying hold on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others also of subduing the passions mortifying lusts overcomming the world In all these being workes wrought in us by God principally instrumentally by this grace Faith is an efficient But all this doth not at all conclude it to bee in any propriety of speech an efficient or any kinde of logicall proper cause in the act of justification because there is no need of any such God being ready to doe his worke to performe his promise i. e. to justifie the penitent beleever and whensoever by his grace that qualification is wrought in the heart or there but truly rooted God pronounces that man just I have out of my heart set downe my sense which I suppose you will finde every where scattered in the Booke I desire not that it may prove a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between us in case there bee any word hastily let fall which though to mee that understood my owne meaning it bee plaine to you especially if you delight to bee captious may want explication but yet I would bee glad to heare if there bee any poyson in any of these propositions and whether and wherein I am mistaken If not I suppose you will be able to answer all your twelve quaeries out of these premises or discerne that it was impertinent to aske them these grounds being thus supposed I shall I think onely need to adde that as soone as ever this new creature hath life in him at the first cordiall receiving the whole Christ in vow or resolution sincere i. e. at the first minute of conversion thus to God the person is justified not one of those in time after the other but in order of nature as naturally the condition must be undertaken before the Covenant belongs to mee but at what minute soever this is done God puts away his wickednesse c. I have sinned saith David and the Lord hath put away thy sinne saith Nathan
whereas God knows 't was no more but citing the words in St. Iames faith consummate by works as a parallel place to faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Paul and let the Papists say what they wil and abuse that or any other place sure this is no abusing Scripture for maintenance of errors But then what you meane by your not dreaming that I thought Abraham was justified by the actuall sacrificing of his Sonne I cannot dreame or imagine certainly I never said any such thing or if you thought I meant that by works you are much mistaken but onely I conceived the resolution of sacrificing to have been accepted by God to his justification without actuall sacrificing him But then Sir in that which follows when 't is resolved that wee are agreed in the conclusion 't is very strange that that will not satisfie you without some retraction O how much a more pleasant thing is victory then peace Sir I must tell you confidently all that that Author ever hath said in the Catechisme is perfectly reconcileable with this conclusion and hee may chance to bee as fit to judge of the importance of his owne words as any man else and therefore still retraction must be spared unlesse you please to retract causelesse displeasures But that it seemes you will not suddainely doe for againe you are deepe in a questioning over againe what hath beene so often answered and profestly acknowledged I shall proceed to doe it over againe once more 1 I say that wee are not jnstified by any thing in us i. e. either by vow of obedience or faith save onely as by a condition or causâ sine quâ non and in that sense by both of them together wee are justified But then you have an objection to those words of mine The condition must bee undertaken before the the Covenant belongs to mee and say in your third That if by Covenant I meane the whole Covenant of grace I must make some condition goe before our regeneration also I answer that the word Covenant there in that place signifies any one part of the whole Covenant which depends on the performance of any proportionable part of the condition and so needs not belong in that place to regeneration also but may bee restrained onely to that of justification Yet for the condition praerequired to regeneration also I have given you my sense formerly and need not so soone repeat it to you 4 For the third you know I professe not to know how they belong to me or any interests of mine 5 That to receive forgivenesse is an act of faith I shall againe acknowledge so you conclude not from thence that it justifies by so doing But that I ever said That wee receive a pardon by an act of charity c. I shall not yet be perswaded nor can that proposition have any truth any otherwise then that charity is part of the condition without which that Pardon shall not belong to me which were a very ridiculous ground of saying that wee receive our pardon by that act because receiving by notes an efficiency and of that there is none in a meere condition Sir I am confident I never said these words and therefore I cannot well forget them As for your citation out of the page 28. of the Cat. That a man is justified by faithfull actions and by them onely That you must understand as 't is there clearely set in the case of Abraham in case there be a present opportunity to exercise the faith For though when such occasions are not present the faith which consists in voto the full resolution the cordiall receiving the whole Christ will serve the turne without any actions yet when the occasion is present the action must bee ready or else the faith will not justifie And therfore though in this case of such opportunities I plead for more then the bare vow as necessary to justification yet still 't is true that I plead for no more in any other case and even in this I can content my selfe with this vow if it bee sincere nor will God acknowledge it so if it act not in time of tryall when the opportunity is offered And so sure I am well enough off from a first and second justification For all that I require by way of condition is the sincere receiving of Christ in heart and resolution which if it bee sincere will fructifie in its due season and if it be not such as will doe so 't is not fit to bee accepted by God to our justification But for your arguing on the other side That if wee are justified by a vow of personall obedience then wee are not justified by Christ alone or by faith onely that is but the old Sophisme so oft laid open by our confessing nothing to have to doe with our justification but Christ as the cause of our justification or that which constitutes us righteous and for our vow of obedience and faith that is onely as the condition granting still faith to receive the pardon but not thereby to justifie And so once more I will agree with you that is with that concluding proposition of yours whether you will permit mee or no and doe it now againe without any need of the least syllable of retraction Thus have I attended you a most wearisome journy being scarce permitted to passe over any line in your Papers without answering some either mistake or question of yours And truly I have served you freely and faithfully and that hath swell'd it to a bulke beyond what in any reason I was bound to pay you And if you doe not please that there shall arise to mee some fruit by all this by your discerning and acknowledging the causlesnesse of your exceptions yet if you please let us put it to others to judge between us for 't is possible wee may judge amisse of our owne performances And therefore by your good leave as before I told you I shall bee willing the world shal judge between us or as many of them as shall bee fitted with great patience to sit out the hearing of so meane an Act. If this course will not please you but you thinke good to write back againe I shall take confidence to expect what is most just that you return ad punctum or ad carceres from whence we set out and which soever of your publique charges upon that Author seemes to you to remaine unsatisfied by my returnes let it bee specified and your reasons joyned with your expressions of dislike such as you thinke will destroy the grounds and bee directly and clearely opposite to the state of the question on which I build And having now twice submitted to such punctuall answering of so long a catalogue of questions let mee I pray bee freed from any more of that taske For I know when all other things are at an end there will never bee any end of them There is a very unhandsome English
were mis-informed and I thanke you for your endeavour to prevent mistakes Truly Sir I doe not wilfully mistake your sense nor doe I desire to take any advantage of an hasty expression Your first Proposition is that justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sinne I will not stand to aske you why you put acceptation before pardon it is likely that was not done de industrià but I would know why you speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation I observe that in your second proposition you doe affirme that The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification Doe not thinke mee too curious since you desire mee to give my opinion of these propositions you know there are some that distinguish between a first and second justification and they doe expresse themselves warily and they will grant what you say so you will give them leave to chuse which they meane this or that justification But I will judge charitably of you hoping that by this justification you intend not to imply that there is another justification and so as they say a first and second justification Give me leave to aske you a question or two about the second proposition compared with the fourth and with some passages in your Practicall Catechisme that by a cleare answer to a few quaeres many mistakes may be prevented In your second proposition you say The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of justification In your Catechisme you say That Christ did sacrifice himselfe for all the sin of all mankinde and yet in your fourth proposition in this last return you say That this worke of grace in God through Christ is not every mans portion Sir if Christs satisfaction bee the sole cause and hee hath made satisfaction for every man the grace of God which extends as farre as Christs satisfaction must be the portion of every man for his justification by the obedience of Christ alone My first quaere then is 1 Why the grace of God in justifying those for whom Christ hath satisfied doth not extend to every man for whom he hath satisfied 2 Whether the qualification and condition which you require in the subject bee bestowed upon the elect absolutely or conditionally Regeneration you say is a condition which doth dispose the subject for justification that is for acceptance and pardon as I conceive and you expresse Pray Sir shew mee what condition God requires unregenerate persons to perform that they may attaine unto regeneration which you take to be the condition of justification I acknowledge that God doth never justifie an impenitent infidell in sensu composito that is the infidell doth not remaine an impenitent infidell but then you must grant on the other side that God doth justifie the ungodly 3 Whether there be any condition which doth so qualifie the subject as that you can say by these habits acts vowes and these onely I am justified Pract. Catech. page 28. Sir Learned men say that there is no condition required to dispose the subject for justification but there is a condition namely Faith bestowed upon none but the elect to receive the object of justification Christ and his compleate obedience perfect righteousnesse and hence as I conceive some men that meant well say there is a condition required that is to receive the object and others say there is no condition required that is to dispose or qualifie the subject so as that the subject shall bee constituted righteous by that disposition or qualification I speake as plainely as I can devise that there may bee no mistake God doth by his free and effectuall grace worke the hearts of his elect to receive Christ that they may bee justified not by their own obedience or vow of obedience but by the obedience of Christ alone freely imputed by God and rested on by faith onely Moreover Learned men doe distinguish betweene disposing of the subject to salvation which is the last part of the excution of Gods decree of election and disposing the subject unto justification though they grant that there is a condition to enable the subject to receive the object Jesus Christ who is Iehovah our righteousnesse And therefore Protestants do maintaine that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best of men concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God and therefore faith concurring with a vow of obedience or any faithfull actions cannot justifie us Though faith alone bee said to justifie us Relatively that is in regard of the object received by faith I acknowledge with you that justification is Gods act wee cannot pardon out selves and God sitting as a fatherly Judg upon a throne of grace doth justifie us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome upon the 8. of Rom. 33. vers Sir let me intreat you not to wonder that I find fault with some passages in your Book which you say are in effect places of Scripture Sir to abuse the Scripture for the maintenance of any error is to my apprehension a great deale worse then to deliver any erroneous conceits in our own language The Papists say as you doe that they say no more then St. Iames himselfe saith I did not dreame that you thought Abraham was justified by the actuall sacrificing of his sonne Socinus saith Abraham was justified by offering up of Isaac I doe not think he means it in any other sense then that which you repeat namely that Abraham was justified by a resolution to obey God in the sacrificing of his Sonne not by the actuall sacrificing of him Sir I am heartily glad to heare you acknowledg that you agree with mee in the conclusion bee pleased to retract all that is contrary to that conclusion in your Pract. Catechisme and then I am sure you must retract what I complained of Pray Sir doe you not thinke that we are justified by a sincere vow of obedience as truly as wee are by faith that is that our vow of obedience is a condition of Justification I doe not say an instrument for you deny faith to bee an instrument of justification And therefore if a sincere vow of obedience be the condition of justification wee are justified as truly by that as by faith 2 Consider that you say in this last returne p. 20. The condition must bee undertaken before the Covenant belongs to me This vow or resolution of obedience is as I conceive that which you call the undertaking of the condition why then surely obedience is the condition of the Covenant of justification for obedience is that which is undertaken in a vow of obedience 3 If by Covenant you meane the whole Covenant of grace you must make some condition goe before our regeneration also 4 You know the Papists speake as fully as you doe any where for the meritorious satisfaction of Christ but you know what
that was brought for it that it might looke the more naked and despicable Your third was discreetly order'd to scoffe at what was said for a dictate and admirable which was neither but a plaine evident truth that the impurity of our humane condition may bee matter of godly sorrow to any though not meerely quà an infelicity and you aske againe whether it bee godly sorrow to grieve for an infelicity I say againe such the infelicity may bee particularly that now spoken of that it may bee matter of Godly sorrow or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be otherwise described in a gracious stile of loving the appearance of Christ which may rid us of our impurities and yet not bee this quà sic meerely as an infelicity which was all that was needfull there to bee inferr'd In your fourth you mention your opinion that all pollution of the soule of man hath been by sinne onely But sure Sir this doth not prove every pollution to bee a sinne but as your words import an effect or consequent of sin Next you pronounce that I am much mistaken and your proof of it is petitio principii a begging i.e. not proving yet assuming the thing before in question and prov'd on the other side by mee both before and now in the last Sect. viz. That no man grieves for a sinne after a godly manner but hee that grieves for it as a sinne against God When you know that by that one instance of the impurity of our nature mourned for by him that tooke it not for a sinne but onely a thing that rendred him 1 imperfect then 2 prone to sinne and 3 lesse amiable in Gods sight c. with an addition of wishing and praying to bee dissolved and bee with Christ as farre better the contrary was undeniably inferr'd and no answer offered by you to these premisses For the undeniable grounds of repentance I suppose they are laid in that Cat. both by requiring it for all sinne and by naming inclinations to evill in the front of sinnes without ifs or ands or any dubious expressions But yet after all your severity in giving your advice for the designing of a Catechisme I conceive your inference in the name of the Acute wretch was farre from any acutenesse for sure whatever were resolved about inclinations being no sinnes when unconsented to 't would never follow for your Client Ergo the like acts to which he is naturally inclined are not evill For sure Sir the acts may bee allow'd sinnes and not bee excused by our being naturally inclined to them whatever were conceived of the inclinations The conclusion from your premisses could onely bee this Ergo this and that act being naturall also are not evill And if you wretch should conclude so you would soone bee able to inform him that his acts are not naturall and therefore may be allow'd to be evil though he be naturally inclined to them because it is very evil not to resist and deny those inclinations You then goe off in triumph with a You know what I could adde Truly Sir I professe I doe not and yet whatever 't is if it bee like this you have allow'd mee I should consider it perhaps in obedience to you but never be much wrought on by it Yet shall I excuse this for the good news it brings with it being a transition to the fourth report another stage toward the end of my very wearisome journey In that you have begun with many little particulars which want of truth particularly that I make a second acknowledgement that I was mis-informed when I onely professe that by your discourse I cannot discerne whether I was in this mis-informed or no. It seemes you are willing to receive acknowledgements of mistakes you would otherwise thinke it more pertinent to tell mee whether in either Assembly you insisted on that particular or no. For an answer to your quaere's you sure perceive though you complaine for want of it that I gave you that whole sense of my soul in that point not onely by that meanes to bee sure to tell you my opinion of your then present quaere's but also of all others of that subject that 't were possible for you to ask And by this time I conceive you do discern that I am neither very forward to make quaere's to divert c. nor to deny answer to them when they are made About the first proposition you mention though you stand not to ask why acceptation is put for pardon 'T were no great matter if I said 't were de industriâ on this head because God first accepts the penitent person in Christ and then after in order of nature though not of time hee pardons his sinnes though indeed 't is true againe that the sinnes are pardoned in order of nature before the acceptation of the actions I meane of all the actions of the subsequent life But then there is a double acceptation of the person first and then of the actions of Abel first as the Fathers observe and then of his offerings Which yet I hope will not passe with you for the double justification but this ex abundanti also But to your maine question for I must now wholly deale in the old trade of answering questions which I have been told is the farre easiest way for him that wants other provision and yet would faine not make an end of disputing Why I speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation Sure 't is partly because acceptation of the person and so pardon also includes imputation of Christs righteousnesse as the formall cause of our justification God accepting of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or payment which is imputation of his sufferings by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and then accepting our persons and pardoning our sinnes partly because one kinde of imputation is after our pardon of sinne in order of nature a distinct thing from it and so needed not to bee there spoken of as belonging rather to our sanctification for the completing or filling up the imperfections of that I meane now the imputation of Christs perfect obedience to that penitent beleever whose sinnes are pardoned by the sufferings of Christ for to such a one Christs perfect obeying the Law may so farre bee imputed as to give a glosse or tincture to his still imperfect obediences so farre as that they shall bee accepted by God Which imputation therefore may bee antecedent to and have to doe with that acceptation of actions but yet in order of nature bee after the acceptation of persons and forgivenesse of sinnes But the truth is I then meant to give you plaine grosser propositions to prevent mistakes and disputes and not to descend to such nicer distinctions as these But truly you were very wary when you laid such an observation on the This in the second proposition which sure was an innocent particle of reference looking back to the Antecedent justification in the