of them I confess I have not seen as Polycarp Tatianus Macarius Athenagoras Vigilius as I have severall others that you mention not and I would fayne see what they have either for or against the Protestant belief Those that have not treated at all on this subject as in some of them that you name I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned or have spoken upon it only be the by are as much as nothing their names might as well have been spared as mentioned Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism in naming some of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism when they have not at all spoken to it and their contemporaries have asserted it 6. Whether the present Church of this age in which we live taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years since the Romish yoke hath been cast off be not as considerable and as much to be heeded in this controversie as all of those in your list mentioned if you should put in yet more to encrease so far as names could do it both weight and number They were subject to error and humane frailty as well as the Church that is and of late was They were not able to decide their own Controversies but laboured as well as we under contentions and divisions they were seldome unanimous but often at difference not only with others but themselves Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage 1. Being far above yours in number go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compasse of time and we shall find your List of names far exceeded 2. They have fully debated the cause and in publick Assemblies determined it in Confessions openly professed it Considered of and answered arguments against it turning over every stone to find out the truth in it so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned and Nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account nor so meet Judges in the point of Grace and Freewill having no adversary and therefore spake more loosly as Austin Prosper Fulgentius and those that followed who were by the adversary put upon the study of it Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur The greatest Doctors at some times saith Dr. Fr. White Treat of the Sabb. p. 89. before Errors and Heresies are openly defended are not neither can be so circumspect in their writing as to avoid all forms and expressions all sentences and propositions all and every tenet which in after times may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth Quoting Austin de Praed Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works which before this heresie arose had not need to busie themselves in the answer of this difficult question which doubtless they had done if they had been put to deal with such adversaries This we may fitly apply to this point of justification we are beholding the opposites of it for a more industrious fifting of it and more cleer light in it Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection had there been none in that age that had denyed it Hâ—d not Popish School-men perverted the doctrine of justification Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal and fervor of Spirit in it And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point had they seen it as we have done perverted and abused 7. If Fathers and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification How is it probable that any singularly verst in Antiquity so as to have few parallels and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification but averse from it and siding with the adversary should own the instrumentality of faith and argue for it if Antiquity were so averse from it he that takes it up is sure either ignorant in Antiquity or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party But such there have been that can neither be challenged as ignorant nor suspected for partiall engagement that yet assert the instrumentality of faith witness Bp. Montague In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective and detected by Bp. Carleton Dr. Featley and others yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication let not onely his adversaries speak that have appeared against him but Sanct. Clara our adversary who Problem 26. quotes Montagues Appeal Chap. 6. to prove the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent agreeable as he sayes with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent Now that this great Antiquary and friend of our adversaries appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification see his Appeal cap. 9. part 2. putting it into his title that God doth justifie originally and faith instrumentall and reasoneth for it in the Chapter it self These things being prâ—mised as to the first concerning the Instrumentality of Faith Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith I thus argue They that are for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all whatsoever else in man they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all in man except faith in this work Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification Here the Proposition is first to be proved and then the Assumption The Proposition I â—hus prove To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith which is not found in any other grace this none can deny and you confess pag. 96. of your Confession Conclus 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work distinct from other graces but to be an instrument in this work This is cleer This peculiar work or office of faith must be either to be an instrument in this work or else a Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non or else somewhat more noble then all of these as the formal meritorious cause c. But it s peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification Though they be all present together saith our Book of homilies yet they do not justifie together pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies saith Davenant he infuses inhaerent grace which yet he denies to be any cause but an Appendix to our justification de Justit habit cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine sayes That Protestants agree in this
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
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
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
that good work are not necessary to Salvation but onely by a necessity of presence lib. 4. de justit cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants then acknowledge and he intends justification as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand Here then is nothing peculiar to faith to be meerly conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non Nâ—ither can we ascribe any more noble causality as to be a formall or meritorious cause as needs not to be proved The asserting of justification by faith therefore denotes that which we make an instrument in justification Now that the Antients assert that we are justified alone by faith putting in that exclusive particle that Papists are wont to say is not in Scriptures nor Fathers may be made good 1. By manifold authorities asserting it 2. By multitude of quotations Our Book of Homilies having quoted severall Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone addes And after this-wise to be justified onely by this true and lively faith in Christ speaketh all the old and Antient Authors both Greek and Latine Ser. of Salvation par 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word onely into the Text in Rom. 3.28 Fulk replies You were best to charge all the Antient Fathers which use this term of whom we have received it to be Foysters and excluders of the Sacraments and good works The particle alone by faith in the article of justification was not first devised by us saith Chemnitius but was alwayes used with great consent in all Antiquity as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate which sentences of the Fathers saith he are gathered by Robert Barnes Aepinus Bullinger Otho Corberus c. Loc. de justif pag. 772. Octavo And Chamier Panstrat Cathol Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture that faith alone justifieth concludes so the Scripture is cleer with us The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me before I examine the exceptions of adversaries The induction of quotations yet remaines and I had it in my thoughts to have set down the words themselves which for the most part are very express but I find that that would be tedious to my self and wearisome to the Reader and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not I shall content my self therefore to poynt out the Authors quoting them and the places quoted Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon 45. if it be Ambroses is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned who sayes that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle onely fifteen times By Eckhardus Compend Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato Hilary lib 6. de Trinit Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28 Chamier ibid. Davenant and Prideaux lect 5. Hieron in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus and Chamier ibid. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side lege naturae is quoted by Chamier Eckhardus Fulk Davenant de Justit habit cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil 51. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier Davenant ibid. Nazianzen Orat. 22.26 is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes 2. is quoted by Eckhardus as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist 27. is quoted by Chamier Eckhardut Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Victor Mar. lib. 3. in Gens is quoted by Eckhard Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper Aquitan Epigram 9. are quoted by Chamier Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk Beda in Psal 77. pag. 71. by Davenant and Bp Vsher de statu success Eccles cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss Ordinaria in Epist Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos Symboli Epiphanius in Ancor Phylast in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres lib. 4. Haeres 5. Maxentius de fide are quoted by Eckhardus And because Papists say that Austin uses not this exclusive particle onely therefore Chemnitius tells us that it is used by him in Serm. Quadrages as also in his exposition of these words Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan Contra duas Epistol Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini Chamier addes In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest 76. Exposit in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony that I have mentioned under his name addes we may then truly say with Erasmus that this word sole which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther is reverently read and heard in the Fathers So that we see a peculiar interest that faith hath in justification which belongs to no other grace And therefore it is no wonder that you who forsake all the reformed Churches that unanimously make it an instrument in justification are at such a stand as you are in Conclus 29. and 30. of your Confession what office in justification to assign to it you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality in this work between saith and obedience which is no marvail seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference and Faiths peculiar office which is the instrumentall interesting us in Christ by way of acceptation or apprehension as Isychius in the place quoted saith Sola fide apprehenditur non ex operibus The grace viz. of justification is apprehended by faith and not by works which is as plain a testimony as may be for the instrumentality of this grace Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies Objecting that the Antients used that particle sole otherwise then we do and returns his answer 1. That they use the word sole or alone to exclude all other sects intending no more but that it is alone the Christian Faith and not the Jewish or Turkish that leads to Justification and Salvation And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega Pag. 191. with no other approbation but that it is sometimes true and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it making it appear that when the Fathers speak of the application apprehension or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith they still
in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received if no barre be put which they understand of the Sacramental bread is very well known But as some have observed where poyson growes providence takes care that there be antidotes found so none of these ever appeared in the Church but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision Jer. 9.25 26. As also Paul making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time and disputing at large against it Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing it seems that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes makes it his businesse to prevent it Having affirmed that Baptisme saves he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power but by the resurrection of Christ that is Faith in the Resurrection and further explains himself that it is not the outward act alone but as answered with an inward work that hath that power as you have heard And Popish Schoolmen making it their work as we have heard to advance Sacraments to that height Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them and what in their right use may be expected from them Calvin's words lib. 4. instit cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs On the other hand saith he b Rursum admonendi sumus ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant usumq prorsus evertunt ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt Sacramenta novae legis hoc est quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae justificare et conferre gratiam modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalâ—s Quae sententia dici non potest quà m sit exitialis et pestilens eoque magis quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit Planè certe diabolica est nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur animas in exitium praecipites agit deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit miseras hominum mentés in terram sâ— apte sponte plus satis inclinatas hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant we are to be advertis'd that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments and utterly overthrow their use so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them such that we never read that God ever put into them which errour saith he dangerously deceives the simple and unlearned Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found they are by degrees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law that is those that are now in use among Christians do Justifie and confer grace provided that we put no barre of mortal sin Which opinion saith he hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken and so much the more because for many Ages to the great losse of the Church it hath prevailed It is certainly saith he devillish for whilest it promiseth Justification without Faith it casts soules headlong to destruction And upon that account because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men over-much of their own accord inclined to earth that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself This is his entrance upon the dispute That which he hath further upon it in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading The consent of other Writers of his time and that have followed after him as a cloud of witnesses might be produced but this as the Reader hath heard is already done to my hand And when some of reverend esteem and singularly deserving in the Church of God have gone overmuch on this hand as soon as it was carried abroad in Manuscripts a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work this as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth followed it And let me here adde to that which hath been said that if nothing else yet experience might correct this over-high conceit of the work of Sacraments That which we evidently see is not wrought by Sacraments we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work This Proposition hath certainly reason in it They certainly do that office which God hath assign'd and appointed them But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out even where according to these there is no bar put therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it Here I might instance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin that stands not with actual forgivenesse But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Justification and therefore this is not against them and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification one for the state of Infancy another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy and afterward upon their acting of sin charged here is no such intercision of justification which Arminians hold and their adversaries oppose I shall therefore wave this and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration which is as well figured out in Baptisme as that other of remission of sin Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt but also to correct the power of original corruption and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin as well as the pardon of it And in case Baptisme effects this work how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self that as soon as they act they are so readily prone to act that which is evill When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord Samuel had a confutation ready What means then sayes he this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in mine ears that
a learned Papist joynes with Protestants in the doctrine of Justification and many others This great wit of the Popish party reading Mr. Calvin to confute him in the point of justification was confuted by him and wrote with us against his own party as is not onely affirmed by men of our party as Davenant de just habit cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus Pighius saith he in his controversies largely explains and confirms our opinion 1. He excludes inherent righteousnesse from any efficacy in justification 2. He manifestly approves the imputation of Christs righteousnesse Lastly He gives his reason why the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us for justification And then addes Many more things are found in the same author who though in other controversies he maintains a fierce warre with Protestants yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Justification he fell off from the Papists and came over to our party And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of justification Pighius saith he though of a peevish spirit enough yet reading Calvin to confute Calvin in the very doctrine of justification was confuted himself and wrote with us but also acknowledged by our adversaries Albertus Pighius is checkt by Bellarmine saith Dr. Prideaux lect 5. Pag. 165. for that in reading our authors himself at last became a Lutheran in this article And that Pighius may not stand alone on our parts among Romanists Davenant in the place quoted produces many others 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entituled Antididagma Who acknowledge the imputed righteousnesse of Christ to be the chief cause of our justification Titu de justific 2. The Romish party in the Conference of Ratisbone Who saith he gave their vote the same way pag. 47. 3. Isidore Clacius orat 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Episcopus Clodiensis cap. 1. ad Ephes pag. 59 72. The two first of these authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewise Adding that Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus Arius Montanus did tread in the same path and therefore miserably suffer by the Index Expurgatorius Cardinal Contarenus is likewise frequently quoted by Amesius as on our party And Dr. Prideaux saith that almost four yeares before the Councel of Trent he had so asserted the orthodox doctrine of Justification that being as is thought taken away by poyson he did not long survive And for the whole space between Gregory and the reformation our author pronounces it that authors generally for the most part were more sound in their commentaries then in their disputations and in their meditations soliloquies and conflict of temptations then in their polemicks Bringing in Chemnitius instancing in Bonaventure and others So that in case they have one of eminence amongst us we have one of theirs as eminent and in case he should prove too light we have many more into the bargain to make up weight There followes Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can find them And his Reader will consider no more of his jeeres when he can look into his books and his eyes miffe of them Some of those of whom he hath made boast as his converts in this controversy have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have written though Mr. Baxter cannot find it I am told that I begin and say more for faiths Instrumentality in receiving Christ than for the instrumentality of it in Justification And the truth is I know not how to distinguish them If it be an instrument to receive Christ that doth justifie it is with me an instrument in Justification If mine eye be an instrument by which I receive in light for sight then mine eye is the organ or instrument of sight If I prove the one I think I cannot be denyed the other The Instrumentality of faith for receiving Christ is thus reasoned against If Faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the act or the habit of Faith that is the Instrument I am well aware that if I shall affirm either of these that then either some text of Scripture will be called for specifying such habit or act of faith in justification or a needlesse stirre will be made about these Logical notions The safest way then is to say with Scripture that faith is the grace that receives Christ and that interests us in propitiation in his blood and the grace by which upon that account we are justified without limitation of it to either the act or habit Neither can any answer as I suppose be thus given but such as will coincidere If I say the habit justifies it is as it puts forth it self into act Whether the act of faith or the habit doth justifie If I say the act justifies it must be as it comes from the habit and so both habit and act justifie Neither doth a mans justification cease when the habit of Faith in sleep ceaseth acting seeing justification denotes a state which is remaining and abiding It is further said Receiving strictly taken is ever passive A reason then may be seen why Divines have called faith a passive instrument in justification and Mr. Baxter may see a fair answer to the high and indeed scornful censure that he gives to the most learned as himself stiles them in his preface to this apology The most learned saith he in the upshot flie to this that credere is not agere but pati and is but Actio Grammatica or the name of action but Physically or Hyperphysically a suffering Is not here a curious doctrine of faith and Justification If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it But I confesse I see no reason to make receiving Neither receiving not believing are in the Authors thoughts meerly passive and consequently believing to be at least meerly passive There is alwaies an act of the will in rational agents in receiving properly so called and often of the hand The receivers of custome are agents for the States and in their receipt are active Receiving in a civil ethical lesse proper sense as is further said is but the act of accepting what is offered But is not this accepting properly receiving or is not receiving properly so called at least necessarily joyned with it in such civil ethical reception When I give a beggar an almes does not he in as strict a sense receive it as I do give it and this is either his act of acceptance or that which accompanies it If I put water into a vessel the vessel rather contains it then receives it If I give a child a lash he rather suffers then receives â—t So that receiving strictly taken is as well active as passive and rather active then passive There is added When it is onely a relation or a jus ad rem that is offered consent or acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession
of further operation Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished that which is objected holds of instruments wholly operative not of those that are meerly receptive A man receives a gift with his hand as the lame man was ready to do when he expected something from Peter and John Act. 3.5 and he earnes his living with his hand as Paul did when in some exigents his hands ministred to his necessities Act. 20.34 In the former mans hand concurres to his enriching but he enriches not himself as in the later The denomination is from the fountaine whence all flowes not from the hand that accepts or the cistern that doth receive There is added In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion nor much stresse laid on it if it were true because it is so obscure It seems then that not I but our Religion is the author of this so high a contradiction so that I cannot defend Religion but I am put upon it to assert such contradictions and who layes greatest stresse upon that which is not obscure and dark I leave to the Reader of Mr. Baxters Aphorismes and Apology to determine It followes That man concurres as a ready agent who doubts but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Do I or doth our Religion make man or faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Quote some words of mine or some Article of faith in any of the Protestant Confessions that affirmes it were some others in my stead they would highly rhetoricate and tell the world what would be said when they are dead But this is my comfort when I am dead Religion will stand up for its own defence that the concurrence of a ready agent hath somewhat of efficiency in it I think none can deny and that such concurrence that I have mentioned can rise to be the efficient I think Faith is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification very few will affirm And to bring my self into that which he before hand charges to be so absurd I said And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also the instrument of God As some have observed a communication of titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Ephes 3.17 We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Act. 15.17 They believed and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification So on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8.13 Here Mr. Baxter first takes in hand the thing that I assert and when he hath done falls upon the proof which is first to quarrel with the conclusion and then to take the premises into consideration 1. It is said If this be indeed true God and man are not coordinate causes in Justification that it is mans instrument of justification and Gods both then both God and man are causae principales partiales by coordination making up one principall cause This he thinks I will not affirm and this indeed I do deny upon the reasons afore laid down it is mans instrument for concurrence in it but not of principall efficiency to produce it In case I had affirmed he gives in his reason of denyal of it in a Similitude of an absolute donor in which I grant the conclusion and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with it As to the proof that I bring he first excepts against that which I say others have observed and say This communication of titles 1. is very rare 2. uncertain whether ever and goeth about to take off that text 1. Cor. 12.12 But this being Heterogeneous to the work in hand I shall let his exceptions alone only pointing him out one another text with which if he please he may take like pains Jer. 23.6 Jer. 33.16 Compared After much ado to find out my meaning he resolves But it is like you intended to have said that there is a common or mutuall attribution of each others actions or one is intitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves And who but he that would seek a knot in a Bul-rush could have thought of any other but as the titles of one are observed by some to be attributed to another so the actions proper to one are attributed to the other Then a Dilemma is brought against me either this is in an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing and either of both is excepted against I say the action of one is said interpretative to be the action of the other because he makes use of it to do his own work or bring about his own purpose To the instance that I gave that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith he saies there is not a word to prove that there is a relative indwelling But Mr. Br. very well knowes that I did not oppose relative in this place to reall as intending to hold forth any effect wrought by Christs indwelling but the opposition is so absolute as I exprest my self I do not say that justification is directly spoke to in that place yet there is a proof I think sufficient that Christ makes use of our act to effect his own work which is as much as I intended elsewhere Mr. Br. is so free as to yield that faith is an instrument to receive Christ How Christ is said to dwell in us by faith but here he stickles hard to deny it but let us take notice of his concessions Christ saith he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter Faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us And so we might say he dwells by Love Hope Meeknesse Patience which I think no Scripture or Orthodox Writer sayes 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirit abode But it is so a condition as it is withall an instrumentall condition It is not barely said if you believe I will give you my Spirit which might imply barely a condition as it is said turn at my reproof and I will pour out my Spirit upon you but it is said we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith 3. Efficienter As the act of faith doth directly cause the encrease and so the abode of the habit And is it may we think a principal or is it an instrumental efficient If an instrumental I have what I desire and I am sure he will not say it is
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
as signum voluntatis divinae being a manifestation of Gods pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner is sufficient So farre I shall willingly grant That which is to be asserted is 1. That this manifestation of Gods pleasure or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed and goes before those graces but now mentioned which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification This is plain The termes on which God will justifie must be understood before men can be brought to accept and come up to them 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made knowne and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the soul in an unjustified condition works to humiliation regeneration faith and by faith to justification 3. This manifestation of Gods pleasure being applyed to a man already humbled regenerate and in faith finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture Though Faith in nature goes before justification as the cause before the effect yet they are in that manner simul tempore that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition that so there should any intervall or time passe for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before to a regenerate believing soul serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition to make good to such a believing son or daughter that their sinnes are forgiven To apply these assertions to our present purpose This manifestation of Gods pleasure Gospel-grant or signum voluntatis divinae or whatsoever else we call it in the first consideration justifies not Going before that which is antecedent to Justification as we see it does it cannot justify In the second consideration it works indeed to justification But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter he will not accept of it for he saies he does not thus speak of it and in this consideration it justifies not without faith but works faith in order to Justification By this man is preached forgivenesse of sins and by him all that believe are justified In the third consideration it justifies not seeing it finds the work done to its hands and onely serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted So that all that can be said of this Gospel-grant donation or conveyance of right so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work is 1. To make known Gods mind on what termes justification may be attained 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it and finally to assure ratify and confirm it I shall the refore close this dispute if I may be allowed so to stile it in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place de justificat mihi pag. 797. octavo Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam Nam quotquot receperunt eum his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri Joan. 1.12 3.33 Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis 1. Docens Patefaciens Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum vel sicut veteres loquntur verbum vocale et visibile For as many as received him to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God John 1.12 and 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension speaking to mens capacity is called a cause instrumental And this instrumentall cause is twofold 1. Teaching Opening Offering and Exibiting the benefits of justification by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts And this is the Word of the Gospel and use of Sacraments or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible 2. Receiving or apprehending 2. Recipiens seu apprehendens quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur ita ut eorum participes reddamur Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem non ulias alias vel qualitates vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis whereby we apply those gifts to our selves which are offered in the Gospel that we may be made partakers of them There is therefore the hand of God as it were delivering and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered And testimonies are both observed and above explained that onely faith sand no other qualities or works in us is the medium of application SECT VI. A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith Christians must get assurance that they do act according to these principles so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles which I might urge respective to all that which is required of a man of Gospel-righteousnesse But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements I shall here onely urge it respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousnesse which is the grace of faith as we see in the Text which is confest to be the grace that receives Christ even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification If this righteousnesse which is our Justification be the righteousnesse of Faith then those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousnesse and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to those that believe those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear yet they come short of righteousnesse for life and salvation Giving assent to all Gospel-truths perhaps upon the principles of their education they may not onely have the repute but also enjoy all outward priviledges of believers yet wanting that work upon their will or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him they yet have not Christ nor life in him and therefore upon this account there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle Especially to see to their faith 2 Cor. 13.5 Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates In which words we see the Apostles exhortation and his reason annext The exhortation calls us to self-examination to a self-tryal an inquisitive experimental tryal The question to be put or thing to be proved or brought to upon
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris
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
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
justification and consequently with him Faith is the instrument So also Determinat 37. pag. 165. (g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris Quia constat eo modo justificari homines quo gloria divina maximè illustretur honor salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt We attribute saith he this instrumentall power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator rather then to any other act of sinning man because it is manifest that men are justified that way by which the glory of God may be most illustrated and the honour of our salvation given to God alone But they that affirm that man is justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of man's savation in justification alone to God but ascribe some part unto themselves You are highly displeased with all those that will have no other condition of our justification at the day of judgement then affiance in Christ's righteousness If you allow faith to begin it yet you will have works at any hand to perfect it Here he is as full as anywhere against you Quoting two passages out of Hilary Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon he thus expresseth himself (h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere sed non solo Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius quando dicit Sola fides justificat Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt sed non consummationem Atille longè aliter justum fides consummat Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith Faith alone justifies They attribute saith he the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation But Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion That faith in Christ as giving himself in Satisfaction for us is alone the justifying act And we shall hear how confident you are that all antiquity is against it as against the instrumentality of faith in justification and the interest of works as consummate in judgement If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat You shall see him as fully against you as Chemnitius Amesius Prideaux Bernard Anselmus or any other that you can look upon as your greatest adversaries My third argument to assert this position laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript he there makes his first which I saw not till I was come hither else I might have made other use of it And see how he expresses himself pag. 164. (i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem Vnde Aquinas In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens Deinde in mandatis comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores c. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore gratuitâ peccati remissione per propter Mediatorem in quas dum fides respicit peccator fiduciam concipit in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur Now as to that speciall proper object at which faith looks in that very instant in which it receives justification from God it is certain that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historicall narrative of creation or providence Whence Aquinas In the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon but that God be thought upon pardoning sin And in the commands and threats of the Law this speciall object is much less found For this consideration begets nothing else but terrors c. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin by and for the mediatour onely remain upon which whil'st faith looks the sinner conceives hope relies upon this mediator offered to him yields himself to divine mercy for justification and thereby attains the benefit of justification And this he backs with three Arguments You tell me Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission Giving in your reasons To which in their due place I have spoke And you may see Davenant as full against you here as any where ca. 23. de Justit habit p. 317. (k) Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis sed per modum imputationis Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith which applies to us the righteousness of Christ not that it should be made ours way of infusion or inhesion but by way of imputation And I wonder saith he that Papists cannot understand how the righteousness of Christ is applied to us by faith who think that they understand how by the Popes indulgencies the merits of Christs and the Saints are applied to the quick and dead As also chap. 28. p. 371. (l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur There is nothing more usual then to ascribe that to the cause applying which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed Therefore because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us that is attributed to faith that indeed is due to Christ Where we plainly see that according to him Faith applies the righteousness of Christ and that it is an applying cause and what cause except instrumentall I cannot imagine Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose But this is enough to let us see that there is not any so fair and full accord between you And if I should be put to name two