a willingness to obey into justifying Faith which they are convinc'd they must do or they shall make mad work on 't that is that they may make S. Iames not to contradict S. Paul they say that justifying Faith must be a working obediential Faith yet as it justifieth must be considered as distinct from obedience But because it is replied that to rely upon Christs merits is an act of obedience or a work they answer that though it be yet it doth not justifie as it is a work and therefore with the other men they will not have it called a condition of Justification but the instrument Philal. But don't you think that this elaborate acuteness might be well spared by understanding works when they are undervalued comparatively to grace and faith as quite distinct things from sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ Theoph. I am verily perswaded it may and that the way in which those that are called the Moral Preachers go as to this point will be made as clear as our hearts can wish by so understanding them Philal. I desire you to give me as full an account as briefly you can how they deliver this doctrine of Faith in reference to Justification Theoph. Justifying Faith because they would express themselvs as plainly as may be in a matter of most weighty importance they describe much after this manner That It is so full a perswasion that Christ Iesus is the Saviour of Mankinde and that his Gospel is true as causeth a hearty and sincere willingness to yeild obedience to all his precepts or to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Philal. This is plain enough And I should think not capable of being misunderstood Theoph. Though I cannot say that I speak the words of any of them yet sure I am that those I have heard them use in defining justifying faith are as easily intelligible as these are and have the same sence Philal. I have heard you heretofore say that when you were a youth you was taught this definition viz. Iustifying faith is a grace of the holy Spirit whereby a man being convinced of his sin and miserable estate in regard of it and an all-sufficiencie in Christ to save from both receives him as he is tendered in the Gospel or according to his three Offices of Prophet Priest and King What fault can be found with the wording of this Theoph. None at all not is a better definition of Faith desirable I was taught this when other kinde of definitions of that grace were all the Mode by a most judicious as well as pious Divine I cannot forbear to call him so though he is of all men most nearly related to me to him I shall ever acknowledge my self obliged for first rightly instructing me in this point and antidoting me against the forementioned false notions concerning it with divers others that were highly by very many cryed up in those as well as in these wilde days Philal. You are not less beholden to that Reverend and worthy person upon those accounts than you are for your very being But I pray do the Preachers you have undertaken to represent not onely say that Justifying faith includes obedience but also that it justifieth as it doth so Theoph. Yes Philalethes that they do For they do not think that the Scriptures make any difference between the two forementioned acts of faith as to the influence it hath upon Justification and that not without cause S. Paul tells us Gal. 5. 6. that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing he means especially as to Justification as appears by vers 4 but faith that worketh by love which takes in the whole of obedience and there he stops The Apostle troubleth not himself to give any caution to the Galatians that they should not understand him as if his meaning was any more than this That justifying faith worketh by love or as if he had said That faith justifieth as it worketh by love Philal. There comes into my minde an Argument that seems to me demonstrative that there is to be made no distinction between those acts of faith in justifying namely the Scriptures assure us that our Saviours death was intended not onely to deliver us from wrath but from sin too and it is plain that this later was its immediate end deliverance from wrath being a consequent of deliverance from sin And therefore faith in Christs bloud must needs justifie as it designs obtaining this as well as that Theoph. Your Argument will rather prove more than that for which you bring it viz. That if those acts of faith be at all to be distinguished in the business of Justification the greater stress is to be laid on that which complieth with the principal end of our Saviours death And so if we must be making comparisons Faith justifieth as it receives Christ quâ Lord rather than quâ Priest or Saviour But however I am not for any comparisons they being perfectly needless and nothing gotten by them Philal. That act of receiving Christ as Lord is to go before that of receiving him as Priest for we may not rely upon him for salvation till we are willing to yeeld obedience to him Theoph. 'T is most true we have not any ground at all so to do we must be willing to be to our power universally obedient before we take that confidence Philal. Before you go farther I pray tell me what distinction you would make betwixt Faith and Repentance and the other graces also if its nature be extended so far as to imply obedience Theoph. The Scriptures are seldom so curious when they speak of Faith or Repentance or the love or fear or knowledge of God c. as to understand them in so restrained a sence as to abstract them from other vertues but sometimes they express all by one We finde in multitudes of places some one of the principal vertues put to express the whole of practical Religion as each of those last mentioned of which I need not give you instances And whereas Faith and Repentance are sometimes distinguished it is onely because believing the Gospel implieth more than bare Repentance in its strict notion Irenaeus therefore gives this honest description of faith in Christ Credere ei est facere ejus voluntatem To believe in Christ is to do his will Moreover we shall finde that Justification and Remission of sins for the Scripture makes no difference betwixt those two is sometimes ascribed to other vertues as well as to Faith but then they are understood either in so general a sence as to include Faith or as supposing it For instance Acts 3. 19. 't is attributed to conversion and repentance Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out To forgiveness of trespasses Matth. 6. 14. If you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you To shewing mercy Mat. 5. 7. Blessed are
the merciful for they shall obtain mercy To works or sincere obedience Iames 2. 24. A man is justified by works and not by faith onely Where Faith is taken in a more strict sence and Works suppose Faith That is A man is justified by an effectual working faith and not by faith without works And again vers 21. saith he Was not our father Abraham justified by works who yet according to S. Paul was justified by faith But whereas Justification is mostly attributed to faith the reason is because all other graces are vertually therein contained and that is the Principle from whence they are derived Philal. I pray inform me next Theophilus what influence it is that those Preachers tell their people Faith hath upon Justification or how it justifieth Theoph. I should not have forgotten this though you had not minded me in the least of it for it is of as great importance to be spoken to as most of the heads of our past discourse Observe therefore That Faith sometimes signifieth in Scripture the Doctrine of faith or the Gospel so it is to be understood Gal. 3. 23 25. and in several other places But it ordinarily signifieth the vertue or duty of believing and so it is variously expressed as by believing on the Son of God and the record that God gave of his Son 1 Joh. 5. 10. Believing the word or words of Christ Joh. 5. 47. Believing Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world Joh. 8. 24. Joh. 11. 26 27. Receiving of Christ Joh. 1. 12. All which are to be understood in a practical sence For as the Scriptures scarcely ever call any other the knowledge of God but that which hath the end of knowledge viz. obedience so do they make nothing true believing but that which hath the ends of faith or causeth men to do those things for the sake of which it is required Now as Faith is put for the Doctrine of faith so those Preachers are content it should justifie as an instrument viz. as it containeth the Covenant of grace and holdeth forth pardon to sinners and so it justifieth as the Law condemneth As it signifieth the vertue or duty of faith so it justifieth as it is the condition of the new Covenant wherein forgiveness of sin is offered God the Father is the principally efficient cause of our Justification and so it is said that it is God that justifieth Jesus Christ justifieth as the onely meritorious or procuring cause the Gospel as the instrumental cause and faith therein as the condition without which we cannot be justified and to which that priviledge is assured The new Covenant offereth pardon of sin and eternal life to us upon the condition of believing in Christ So God loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life He that believeth shall be saved c. If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins Philal. This is a very easie account of Faiths justifying Theoph. Nothing seems to me to be more plain as obscure a business as 't is made Philal. But what cannot the wit of men make difficult Theoph. First there is nothing more evident as we said than that the new Covenant is conditional and that God doth not therein promise absolutely pardon of sin and the consequent blessings Philal. The great place that is produced against the conditionality of the Covenant of grace is that which you said you would speak to viz. that quotation out of Ieremiah that we finde in Heb. 10. 8. where God seemeth in his Covenant to promise to do all in order to our eternal happiness and to require nothing of us Theoph. It is in a good hand I pray do you answer that Objection Philal. Were I duller than I am I think I could easily enough apprehend a satisfactory answer to it viz. That a condition is there implied for the meaning of those words I will put my laws into their hearts and write them in their inward parts cannot be I will do all for them they need do nothing at all this would make all the precepts of the Gospel most wretchedly insignificant nor indeed do any assert this but some very monstrously wildebrain'd people nor yet as appears from many other Scriptures can this be the sence I will sanctifie their natures and so cause them to keep my laws without their concurrence in that act but I will afford them my Grace and Spirit whereby they co-operating therewith and not being wilfully wanting to themselvs shall be enabled so to do Or I will do all that reasonable creatures can reasonably expect from Me towards the writing of my laws in their hearts putting them into their inward parts Whatsoever God may do for some persons out of his superabundant grace doubtless this is all that he either here or elsewhere engageth himself to do for any Theoph. This exposition of yours is a very good one most agreeable with the analogie of Faith and fully answers the forementioned Objection But there are very judicious Expositors that are led by the consideration of the verse following thus to interpret this place viz. This is the Covenant that I will make in the times of the Gospel I will in stead of those external and carnal ordinances which the house of Israel hath for a long time been obliged to the observance of give them onely such precepts as are most agreeable to their reason and understandings and such as wherein they may discern essential goodness and by this great expression of my grace to them as also that which is expressed in the 12 verse namely assurance of pardon to all reforming sinners of all past wickednesses whatsoever and all present frailties and weaknesses I shall not onely convince them of their duty but also strongly encline them to the chearful performance of it And then it follows very pertinently to this sence in vers 11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest i. e. There shall be no need of such pains in teaching men how they must obey the Lord and what they are to do as there was under the Law of Moses which consisted in observations that were onely good because commanded and had no internal goodness in them to commend them to the reason of men and which might cause it to prompt them to them but the precepts now given shall be found written by every man in his own heart so that none need be ignorant of what is enjoyned for the substance of it that will but consult the dictates of their own natures For a confirmation of this sense see Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14 vers Moses having in the later part of vers 10. put the people upon turning to the Lord their
it Theoph. But Philalethes those that would have the Apostle to designe in those verses the proving of the doctrine of Absolute Reprobation and the justice of it how besides the purpose do they make him in this verse to conclude that discourse Philal. It would have been a thousand times more pertinent to such a designe for him thus to say What if God willing to declare his Soveraignty was pleased from Eternity to determine concerning you that you should be unavoidably damned and to make you for that very end notwithstanding all the means of grace he hath afforded to you which of you dares therefore to say or think that he is too hardly dealt with or can complain upon that account Theoph. Ay well said this would be to the purpose with a witness but thanks be to God there 's no such talk as this in all the Bible Philal. But give me leave to offer to you another interpretation of the 19 and 20 verses Why doth he yet finde fault for who hath resisted his will i. e. Why doth he now finde fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be so rendered for it signifieth jam as well as adhuc for who hath disobeyed his Law Why is he so angry with us and resolved so severely to punish us for we are so far from refusing obedience to his Law that it is onely our zeal for that which makes us reject your Christian Religion Then saith the Apostle Nay but O man who art thou that replyest against God Shall the thing formed c. i. e. You may be ashamed of that sawcie and profane answer for may not God your Creator impose what Laws he pleaseth on you is he bound never to abrogate the Law given by Moses to you and to require your obedience to no other And then it followeth Hath not the potter power over the clay c. And therefore why may not God for your obstinate disobedience to his Son Jesus as zealous as you are for the Law of Moses of a glorious Nation dignified with extraordinary priviledges make a base and contemptible people of you and continuing in unbelief make your condition far worse too in the other world as well as the Potter when he findes a piece of clay untractable so that it will not be made a fine vessel doth make a courser and one for a mean use of it Theoph. This Exposition of yours is ingenious and for ought I know the truest if either there can be found a good connexion between the 22 verse and those so interpreted or the 22 verse be related not so much to these as to the 18 verse Philal. But whatsoever meaning the Apostle had in some verses of this Chapter the oftener I read it the more am I convinced that there is not a syllable of any such Doctrine as that you have been disproving to be found there and that he saith nothing to prove either Esau or his posterity to be put into a desperate condition by Gods decrees concerning their eternal state but onely that the seed of Iacob were distinguished from that of Esau by the enjoyment of far greater priviledges in this world Nor that he asserts any other Reprobation of the Jews than that which their wilful rejection of the Messiah and his Gospel was the cause of Theoph. No nor yet as I said doth the Apostle say that they were in a hopeless condition as to their eternal salvation notwithstanding their unbelief but onely that upon this account God had passed an irreversible Decree for the rejection of them considered as a Nation For the conversion of any particular persons among them is not asserted to be absolutely impossible but all that may be proved from any of his words is that Gods purpose to cast them off so far as that they should be no more a distinct Nation or Body Politick was unchangeable Philal. I have been often told that the most ancient Fathers were not so Eagle-eyed as to espie that doctrine either in this Chapter nor yet elsewhere Theoph. Several nay most of them most plainly I assure you contradict it in their Writings in the plainest expressions as I am prepared to shew you at large whensoever you shall please to desire me And this is so true that you know they are suspected by many of that Doctrine which was since their days called Pelagianism though without sufficient ground if at least the Pelagian Doctrine were what it is now commonly represented to be but it is not certainly known what it was Philal. This alone is almost a demonstration to me that the Apostles never preacht this Doctrine For those Fathers living so near their days 't is not easily conceivable how they should so unanimously concur in mistaking their sence they being in far better circumstances to understand it than we that are at such a distance from them Theoph. But how is it imaginable then that they should run so soon from one Extreme to another as they must have done if the forementioned suspicion of some be true But however I can by no means understand how it should come to pass that those Fathers of the Church that almost immediately succeeded the Apostles should in such a point as this which is pretended to be so clearly revealed depart from them Iustin Martyr wrote his Apology for the Christians but fifty years after St Iohn's death as appeareth by the Apology it self I mean that written to the Emperour Senate and People of Rome for therein he tells them that it is now one hundred and fifty years since Christ's Nativity and St Iohn died according to both Eusebius and St Hierom sixty eight years after his Passion and therefore a 1000 or 101 after his Birth Now Iustin in several of his undoubted Books expresly contradicteth that Doctrine and so he doth particularly in his First Apology viz. that to Antoninus Pius which the forementioned Eusebius and St Hierom say was the first though it be set in the second place The like also doth Athenagâ—ras who was Iustin's Equal and Irenaeus frequently who was Scholar to Polycarpus who was Scholar to St Iohn the Evangelist And I can give you many more instances as Tatianus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen c. but that this is a most plain and confessed case Philal. This Doctrine as it hath of late years been stated as I have been informed was never known till fourteen hundred years after our Saviours Birth in the Christian world Theoph. But I assure you Philalethes whosoever told you so misinformed you For that which is as like to it as an Egg is to an Egg or Milk to Milk was held and taught in the first Ages of the Church Philal. You seem now to contradict what you last said Theoph. No but I do not Philal. By whom was it taught then Theoph. By the Old Gnosticks as you will see if you consult Irenaeus and Origens Philocalia where you have them urging the very same