Justification as believing in him as Priest it being the backwardness of nature to the acceptance of Christs Government and Doctrine that is a special Reason why faith is made the condition of that pardon which Nature is not so backward to accept 12. The Reasons to be assigned why faith in Christ is made the condition of Justification is 1. The will of the free Donor 2. The fitness of faith to that Office as being suited to Gods Ends and to Christ the Object and to mans necessitous estate Not only because it is the Receiving of Righteousness but for all these Reasons together in which its aptitude doth consist and its Aptitude to the Honour of the Redeemer and free Justifier is the principal part of its Aptitude it being impossible that God should prefer man as his ultimate and before himself 13. Though the Reason why Faith is made by God the condition of our Justification must partly be fetcht from the Nature of Faith which some call its Instrumentallity in apprehending Christ yet the Reason why we are Justified by Faith must be fetched from the Tenour of the Promise and Will of the Promiser So that though the Remote Reason be that Aptitude of Faith which is the Dispositio material yet the formal neerest Reason is because God hath made it the condition of the Gift which shall suspend the efficacy till performed and when performed the benefit shall be ours 14. As Faith hath its denomination from some one or few acts which yet suppose many as concomitant and consequent So those concomitant and consequent Acts have their answerable place and Interest in the foresaid Conditionality as to our part in Christ and Justification 15. And therefore it was not the Apostles meaning to set Faith against these concomitant acts as Repentance hope in Christ desire of Christ love to Christ c. and to exclude these under the notion of Works but contrarily to suppose them in their order 16. The burdensome works of the Mosaical Law suppoed to be such as from the dignity and perfection of that Law would justifie men by procuring pardon of sin and acceptance with God are they that the Jews opposed to Christs Righteousness and Justification by Faith and which Paul disputeth against and consequently against any works or acts or habits of our own opposed to Christ or this way of free justification by him 17. The not loosing our Iustification and Title to Christ and Life hath more for its condition then the first Reception or Possession hath And so hath the final Iustification at judgement if men live after their first believing 18. Justification at judgement being the Adjudging us to Glory hath the same conditions as Glorification it self hath Reader In these Eighteen Propositions thou mayst fully see the Doctrine that I contend for which also in my Confession Apologie and this Book I have expressed And now I will shew you somewhat of the face of the Doctrine which the Dissenters commonly do propugne but not so largely because I cannot open other mens Doctrine so freely and fully as I can do my own 1. They agree with me that Christs Righteousness is the meritorious or material cause of our Iustification though some add that it is the formal cause I suppose it is but a mistaken name 2. They agree that Christ and pardon and Life are Given us by the Gospel-Promise 3. They yield that an entire Faith in Christ as Christ is the condition of our Right to his entire Benefits 4. But they say that the Acts of Faith in thier procurement of the Benefits have as divers an Interest as the Acts of Christ which Faith believeth 5. And they say that it is some one act or two or some of them that is the sole justifying act though others be compresent 6. This Iustifying act some call the Apprehending of Christ as a Sacrifice some Affiance or Recumbency or Resting on him as a Sacrifice for sin or as others also on his active Righteousness or an Apprehension of Christs Righteousness or as others A perswasion that his Promise is true or an Assent to that truth or as others an Assurance or at least a Belief fide Divinâ that we are justified 7. They say that the neerest Reason of our Iustification by this faith is because it is an Instrument of our Iustification or of our Apprehending Christs Righteousness And so that we are justified by Faith as an Instrumental efficient cause say some and as a Passive Receiving Instrument say others 8. They say that there being but two wayes of Iustification imaginable by faith or by works all that desert the former way if they despair not of Iustification fall under the expectation of the latter And I grant that Scripture mentioneth no third way 9. Therefore say they seeing that Pauls Iustification by Faith is but by the act before mentioned whoever looketh to be justified in whole or in part by another act as by Faith in Christ as Teacher as King by desiring him by Hoping in him by Loving him by disclaiming all our own righteousness c. doth seek Iustification by Works which Paul disputes against and so set against the only true Iustification by Faith 10. Yea and they hold that whoever looks to be Iustified by that act of faith which themselves call the Iustifying act under any other notion then as an Instrument doth fall to justification by works or turn from the true Iustification by Faith By these unwarrantable Definitions and Distinctions and additions to Gods Word A lamentable perplexity is prepared for mens souls it being not possible for any living man to know that he just hits on the justifying Act and which is it and that he takes in no more c. and so that he is not a Legalist or Jew and falls not from Evangelical Iustification by faith in Christ So that Iustification by faith in Christ as Christ considered in all essential to his Office is with them no Iustification by faith in Christ but justification by Works so much disowned by the Apostle the expectants of which are so much condemned I have gathered the sum of most of the Dissenters minds as far as I can understand it If any particular man of them disown any of this let him better tell you his own mind For I intend not to charge him with any thing that he disowns The Lord Illuminate and Reconcile all his people by his Spirit and Truth Amen The CONTETS Disputation 1. Quest WHether we are justified by believing in Jesus Christ as our King and Teacher as well as by believing in his blood Aff. pag. 1. The state and weight of the Controversie p. 2 c. Ten Propositions for fuller explication p. 10 c. Argument first p. 13 Argu. 2. p. 14 Argu. 3. p. 19 Argu. 4. p. 24 Argu. 5. p. 27 Argu. 6. p. 28 Argu. 7. p. 30 Argu. 8. p. 31 Argu. 9. p. 35 Argu. 10. p. 38 defended against Mr. Blak's assault
said Causalitas quaedam which is terminus diminuens If quoad esse causalitatis it be terminus diminuens then the meaning is that I make them no causes But do you think any Reader will English Causalitas quaedam by no Causality But doubtless you mean that it is Terminus diminuens as to the quality or nobility of the cause But first I never heard before that quaedam was terminus diminuens and if no Readers must understand you but those that know this to be true I think it will be but few Secondly But what if that were so Did you not know that I denyed even all causality how diminute soever quaedam can express if it be but real Thirdly But you added Concurrence But it was in Concurrence with the several unjust passages before mentioned and sure the neighbour-hood of that word hath not force enough to make them all true Preface My Reverend Brother saith He vehemently disclaimeth all Causality of works in Justification surely his meaning is all Proper causal efficiency and so did I in the stating of it But to deny Causality in a large sense is to contradict himself Answer If so what hope of Justice Must I in paper after paper disclaim all true Causality and will you not only perswade the world of the contrary but persist in it whether I will or not and say I mean a proper causal efficiency Reader I have no other remedy left but to advise thee that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I disclaim not all true causality or mean not as I say thou believe not the affirmation Preface For in his Aphoris 74. Thes They both viz. Faith and Works justifie in the same kind of causality or mediate it should be media and improper causes or as Dr. Twiss causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal Obedience as the less principal Here is causality though improper Here is a causa dispositiva and yet shall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit Answer This is but to add injustice When I have written at large that faith and works are no true causes of Justification and after tell you that a condition is commonly called causa sine qua non which is causa fatua and no cause at all but meerly nominal having by custom obtained that name and that Dr. Twiss calls this causa dispositiva when I say that they have only a causality improperly to called which indeed is no causality Is it justice for you still to perswade the world that I mean some causality though not efficiency The thing I renounce the name is not it that you only charge me with if you had I was not the maker of it It was called causa sine qua non before I was born I must comply with common language or be silent especially when I tell you I take it for no Cause You give me such justice as the hoast of the Crown Tavern in Cheap-side had who as Speed saith was hanged for saying merrily that his Son was Heir of the Crown and his exposition would not save his life I pray you hereafter remove more then Efficiency and Merit I take not works to be either the material or formal cause of Justification no nor the final though you in the words before cited affirm it such Who then gives more to works you or I The final cause is so called because it causeth us to choose the means to it Justification is not a means of our using but an act of God Therefore works are not properly the end of it as to us And yet let me say this to you lest you should mistake me As vehemently as I disown all true causality of works to our Justification I intend not to fall out with all men that call them causes As first Not with Piscator nor such other that call them causes of our final absolution and salvation Secondly Nor with those that call them meritorious in the same sense as the Fathers did though they unfitly use the word Thirdly Nor with those that will say that because they please God and so are the object of his complacency and will they may therefore speaking after the manner of men be called Procatarctike causes of his act of Justification and so that the Amiableness and desirableness of faith and holiness is the cause why he assigned them to this Noble place and office Fourthly Nor with them that say faith is a moral or a Metaphorical passive or active Instrument of Justification Though I say not as these men I will not quarrel with them Preface But I need not run to this for my Arguments militate against works at works justifying under any pretended Notion whatsoever Answer By the help of this I shall interpret all your Arguments And if so then they militate against the act of faith justifying under the pretended notion of an Instrument unless you will say that faith is no Act or Instrumentality is no pretended notion Preface And this maketh me admire how my learned Brother could let fall one passage wherein he may be so palpably and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the first looking upon my Arguments that which he saith is the strength of my Arguments lies upon a supposition that conditions have a moral efficiency There is no one of these ten Arguments brought against Justification by works as a Condition sine qua non that is built upon this supposition or hath any dependance on it only in the fourth Argument after their strength is delivered I do ex abundanti shew that a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a moral efficiency Answer First you confess it is your Assertion that such Conditions have a moral efficiency Secondly I never said that you made that a Medium in all your Arguments nor that you intended that as their strength but that their strength lyeth on that supposition and if I have mistaken in that I will not stand in it But I think to shew you that without that supposition your Arguments have no strength which if I do then judge at what you marvailed But it s a farther act of injustice in you in alleadging me Apol. pag. 8. saying that some conditions are impulsive causes when I told you it is not qua conditions but only as materially there is somewhat in them that is meritorious I doubt not but the same thing may be the matter of a cause and a condition I shall now return to your Lect. of Justification and there speak to the other passage in your preface about justifying Repentance and Love c. Treat pag. 220. This therefore I shall God willing undertake to prove that good works are not a condition or a cause sine qua non of our Justification Answer But remember that it is Justification either as begun in constitution or continued or as pronounced by the Judges Sentence that the Question comprehendeth and not only the
will not be effectual to our Justification without Faith and repentance But perhaps this Writer means only to shew his offence against my naming Christs righteousness legal If that be so 1. I have given in my reasons because there can be no better reason of a name then from the form and the form of Christs righteousness being relative even a conformity to the Law of works and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption I thought did sufficiently warrant this name 2. The rather when I find not only that he is said to fulfill the Law and all righteousness and be made a curse for us but also to be righteous with that righteousness which is denyed of us which can be none but a legal or prolegal righteousness 3. But yet if the name Legal be all I could easily have given this Brother leave to differ from me about a name without contention and methinks he might have done the like by me Mr. W. Object But what if works and faith were both of them applyed to procure our Justification Answ This Objection yet further shews that the Author understands me not if it be me as I have reason to judge that he writeth against for he supposeth that its works that I call a legal Righteousness when I still tell him it is Christs satisfaction and fulfilling the Law of which our faith or works are no part but a subordinate particular Evangelical Righteousness Mr. W. 5. If both these kinds of Righteousness were absolutely necessary then where one of them is wanting in a person there can be no Justification of that person But Ergo. For where was any Legal Righteousness of the good thief on the Cross condemned for legal unrighteousness Answ I deny your minor The converted thief had a legal righteousness hanging on the next Cross to him even Christ that then was made a curse for him and was obedient to the death of the Cross I begin to be a weary in writing so much only to tell men that you understand me not Mr. W. 6. If legal Righteousness be thus necessarily to be joined with our Evangelical Righteousness to Justification then there must be two formal causes of Justification Answ I deny your consequence If the formal cause consist in remission and imputation as you say then Christs meritorious righteousness is none of the Form but the Matter And if besides that Matter a subservient particular righteousness of faith be necessary as the condition of our Title to Christ this makes not two forms of this Justification 2. And yet I grant you that it infers a subservient Justification that hath another form when you are made a Believer or justified against the false charge of being no Believer or penitent this is not remission of sin but another form and thing Mr. W. 7. That which maketh void Christs death cannot be absolutely necessary to Justification But legal righteousness makes void his Death Gal. 2.21 Answ It s a sad case that we must be charged with making void Christs Death for saying that he is legally Righteous by satisfying and fulfilling the Law and that this is all the legal righteousness that we have I am bold therefore to deny the Minor yea and to reverse it on you and tell you that he that denyeth Christs legal Righteousness denyeth both his death and obedience The Text Gal. 2.21 speaks not of the Law as fulfilled by Christ but by us Righteousness comes not by our keeping the Law but it came by Christs keeping it yet so that the Gospel only giveth us that righteousness of his Mr. W. 8. That which concurs with another efficient must have both an aptitude and Confluence to produce the effect but the Law and consequently Legal righteousness hath no aptitude to give life Gal. 3.2 Answ This is Disputing enough to make one tremble and loath Disputing Is there no aptitude in Christs legal Righteousness to give us life The Law doth not give us righteousness but it denominateth Christ righteous for fulfilling it and the Law-giver for satisfying and to that it had a sufficient aptitude The Text Gal. 3.2 saith truly that the Law giveth not life but first it speaks of the Law as obeyed by us and not by Christ that fulfilled it Secondly And indeed its speaks of Moses Law and not directly of that made with Adam Thirdly And it denies not that Christ fulfilling it may give us life though the Law it self give us none so that all this is besides the business Mr. W. 9. That Doctrine which doth most exalt the Grace of God ought to be admitted before that which doth least exalt it But the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as our Gospel-righteousness doth most exalt his Grace and the other less Ergo. Answ Still misunderstanding Doth the Doctrine of faith alone without Christ advance Grace That 's no faith You do not think so that which denyeth Christ or faith denyeth Grace Mr. W. 10. That opinion which considereth a person under a two-fold Covenant at the same time ought not to be admitted But to require both Legal and Evangelical Righteousness is to consider him under the Covenant of works and Grace I conclude therefore that two sorts of righteousness are not necessarily required to our Justification Answ How far we are or are not under the Covenant of works I will not here trouble you by digressing in this rambling Dispute to enquire But to your Minor I say this opinion considereth man only under the curse of the Law till Christ take it off him by being made a curse for us and making over the fruit of his merits and suffering to us Mr. W. 2. As for the Subjects of these kinds of Righteousness I thus declare 1. That Jesus Christ and he alone who was truly endued with Legal righteousness who as he was made under the Law so he did not destroy but fulfill it and if he had not been the subject of Legal righteousness in himself he could not have been the Author of Evangelical Righteousness to us Answ Here after all these Arguments I have all that granted me that I contend for supposing the Imputation or Donation of Christs Righteousness to us whether in se or in â—ffectis I now dispute not You have here his full confession that Christ had a legal Righteousness Let him but grant the imputation of this and then it s ours And then I have granted him that it may be also called Evangelical in another respect Mr. W. pag. 166. I think it to be no incongruity in speech or Paradox in Divinity to say that Christs Legal righteousness is our Evangelical righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 2 Cor. 5.21 Jer. 23.8 Answ Sure we shall agree anon for all the ten Arguments Here 's all granted but the name as to us Many and many a time I have said that Christs Righteousness made ours is Legal in respect to the Law that it was a conformity to and which it answereth for us but
which is preached to every Creature and not only one branch of it Col. 1.21 22 23. And it is called Col. 2.6 a Receiving Christ Iesus the Lord. John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name That faith by which we have life is certainly it by which we are justified for as Justification is part of that life so Right to Eternal life is given on the same terms as Justification is And the object of this faith here is Christ in Person and entire Office the son of God by whose Name we have life Acts 2.30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. Knowing that God had sworn with an Oath to him that of the fruit of his loynes according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit upon his Throne he seeing this before spake of the Resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in his Hell neither his flesh did see Corruption This Iesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses therefore being by the right hand of God exalted therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made this same Iesus whom ye have Crucified both Lord and Christ Now when they heard this Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sins Here it is evident that Remission of sins is a Benefit that by this faith they were to be made partakers of and so that it is the faith by which we are justified that they are Invited to And that the Object of this faith implyed in the terms Repent and be baptized c. is the Name of Jesus Christ and that eminently in his exaltation as Risen and set at the Right hand of God and as Lord and Christ So Acts 3.19.22.15 Repent therefore and be Converted that your sins may be blotted out For Moses truly said A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up Here the Jews are accused for killing the Prince of life vers 15. and exhorted to Repent thereof and so of their Infidelity and be converted to Christ and so to become Christians which is more then one act of faith and this was that their sins may be blotted out And Christ as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of this faith which they are exhorted to So Act 10.42 43. with 36 37 38 40 41. And he commanded us to preach unto the people and to testifie that it is he that is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead to him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of sins Here the faith is described which hath the Promise of Remission And the Object of it is at large set out to be Jesus Christ as Lord of all ver 36. as anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power raised from the dead and made the Judge of the quick and the dead and it is called entirely a Believing in him and the Remission is through his name Act. 16.31 The faith of the Jaylor as perswaded to for life is the believing in the Lord Jesus Christ entirely and it s called a Believing in God ver 34. 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. The faith there mentioned is that By which we are justified he that believeth on him shall not be confounded and the Object of it is whole Christ as the Corner stone Elect and Precious John 5.10 11 12. The faith there mentioned is that by which we have Christ and Life And the Object of it is the Son of God and God and the record that God gave of his Son even that God hath given us eternal Life and this life is in his Son Mat. 11.27 28 29. The faith there mentioned is called a comming to Christ weary and heavy laden that he may give them rest which must comprehend Rest from the Guilt of sin and punishment And the Act of that Faith is directed to Christ as one to whom all Power is given by the Father and as one whose yoak and burden we must take upon us But I shall add no more for this To this last Mr. Blake saith pag. 504. This Text shows the Duty of men to be not alone to such rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedom or Justification Repl. Properly neither one act of faith nor other is our Justification Faith is a Quality in the Habit and an act in the exercise and Justification is a Relation Faith is a part of our Sanctification Therefore it is not our Justification But supposing you speak Metonymically I say both acts of faith are our Justification that is the Condition of it And the Text proves it by making our Subjection not only a Duty but an express Condition of the Promise And this Conditionality you here before and after do confess or grant Argument 4. If we are justified by Christ as Priest Prophet and King conjunctly and not by any of these alone much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone then according to the Opponents own Principles who argue from the distinct Interest of the several parts of the Object to the distinct Interest of the several acts of faith we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest Prophet and King and not as Humble and Obedient only But we are justified by Christ as Priest Prophet and King c. Ergo c. The Consequence is their own And the Antecedent I shall prove from several texts of Scripture and from the nature of the thing beginning with the last And first it is to be supposed That we are all agreed that the blood and Humiliation of Jesus Christ are the Ransome and Price that satisfieth the Justice of God for our sins and accordingly must be apprehended by the Believer And many of us agree also that his Active obedience as such is part of this satisfaction or at least Meritorious of the same effect of our Justification But the thing that I am to prove is that the Meritorious Cause is not the only Cause and that Christ in his other actions is as truly the efficient Cause as in his meriting and that all do sweetly and harmoniously concur to the entire effect and that faith must have respect to the other causes of our Justification and not alone to the Meritorious Cause and that we are Justified by this entire work of Faith and not only by that Act which respects the satisfaction or merit And first I shall prove that Christ doth actually justifie us as King The word Justification as I have often said and it s past doubt is used to signifie these three Acts. First Condonation or constitutive Justification by the Law of Grace or Promise of the Gospel Secondly Absolution
Word of Answ 1. We say not that Jams calls them a condition therefore we add not to him as his 2. Every Exposition and application is an addition of another sort but not as of the same 3. I use not the active phrase that Works justifie agreeing so far with you who note a difference between these sayings Faith justifieth and we are justified by faith for all that Mr. Blake despiseth the observation which perhaps he would scarce have done if he had known that you had being guilty of it also 4. Scripture supposeth Grammer Logick Physicks c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part If James tell you that we are justified by works he doth not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a verb and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a noun and so of the rest but he warranteth you to say so without any unjust addition supposing that Grammer so call them If the Scripture say that God created the Heavens and the earth it doth not say here in terms that God was the efficient cause but it warranteth you to say so If it say that Christ dyed for us and was a Sacrifice for our sins and hath obtained eternal redemption for us yet it saith not that he is the meritorious cause or the material cause of our Justification But it will warrant you to say so without the guilt of unjust additions If you may say as a Grammarian and a Logitian when you meet with such words in Scripture These are Paronyma and these Synonyma and these Homonyma and this is an universal that a singular that a particular and that an indefinite this is an efficient cause that a material formal or final this is a noun that a verb the other a participle or an adverb I pray you then why may not I say when I read in Rom. 10.9 that If thou confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart c. that If is a conjunction conditional Is this adding to the Scripture unjustly If I did when ever I read that we are justified by faith collect thence that faith is an Instrumental cause as if by were only the note of an Instrument then you might have accused me of unwarrantable addition or collections indeed Lastly If you have a mind to it I am content that you say by the unscriptural names or additions as you speak of nouns pronouns verbs antecedents consequents efficient or material causes c. and I will lay by the name of a condition as you do of an Instrument and we will only use the Scripture phrase which is If you forgive men your Father will forgive you if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive we are justified by faith without the works of the Law A man is justified by works and not by faith only By thy Words thou shalt be justified Every man shall be judged according to his works c. Let us keep to Scripture phrase if you desire it and you shall find me as backward as any to lay much stress upon terms of Art Having gone thus far I shall in brief give you a truer reconciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us 1. They debate different questions 2. And that with different sorts of persons 3. And speak directly of different sorts of works 4. And somewhat differ in the sense of the word Faith 5. And somwhat about the word Justification 6. And they speak of works in several Relations to Justification 1. The Question that Paul disputed was principally Whether Justification be by the works of the Mosaical Law and consequently by any mercenary works without Christ or in Co-ordination with Christ or any way at all conjunct with Christ The question that James disputed was Whether men are justified by meer believing without Gospel-Obedience 2. The persons that Paul disputed against were 1 The unbelieving Jews that thought the Mosaical Law was of such perfection to the making of men righteous that there needed no other much less should it be abrogate Where specially note that the righteousness which the Jews expected by that Law was not as is commonly imagined a righteousness of sinless obedience such as was required of Adam but a mixt Righteousness consisting of accurate Obedience to the Mosaical Law in the main course of their lives and exact sacrificing according to that Law for the pardon of their sins committed wherein they made express confession of sin so that these two they thought sufficient to justifie and lookt for the Messias but to free them from captivity and repair their Temple Law c. And 2. Paul disputed against false Teachers that would have joyned these two together the Righteousness of Moses Law and Faith in Christ as necessary to life But James disputed against false Christians that thought it enough to salvation barely to believe in Christ or lived as if they so thought its like misunderstanding Pauls Doctrine of Justification as many now do 3. The works that Paul speaks of directly are the services appointed by Moses Law supposed to be sufficient because of the supposed sufficiency of that Law So that its all one with him to be justified by the Law and to be justified by works and therefore he ofter speaks against Justification by the Law expresly and usually stileth the works he speaks of the works of the Law yet by consequence and a parity of Reason he may well be said to speak against any works imaginable that are set in opposition to Christ or competition with him and that are supposed meritorious and intended as Mercenary But James speaks of no works but Obedience to God in Christ and that as standing in due subordination to Christ 4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Justification Paul means our Assent to all the essential Articles of the Gospel together with our Acceptance of Jesus Christ the Lord as such and affiance in him that is To be a Believer and so to have faith is with Paul to be a Disciple of Christ or a Christian Though sometime he specially denominates that faith from one part of the object the promise sometime from another the blood of Christ sometime from a third his obedience And in other cases he distinguisheth Faith from Hope and Charity but not in the business of Justification considering them as respecting Christ and the ends of his blood But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion such as the Devils themselves had 5. Paul speaks of Justification in its whole state as begun and continued But James doth principally if not only speak of Justification as continued Though if by works any understand a disposition to work in faith or conjunct with it as Dr. Iackson doth so his words are true of initial Justification also 6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned Paul speaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal personal Righteousness
of Condition 4. And I need not say more to this it being acknowledged generally by all our Divines not one that I remember excepted besides Mr. Walker that faith justifieth as the condition of the Covenant Mr. Wotton de Reconcil part 1. l. 2. cap. 18. brings you the full Testimony of the English Homilies Fox Perkins Paraeus Trelcatius Dr. G. Downam Scharpius Th. Matthews Calvin Aretius Sadeel Olevian Melancth Beza To which I could add many more and I never spoke with any solid Divine that denyed it 2. Now that a physical apprehension would not justifie as such is evident 1. Else Mary should be justified for having Christ in her womb as I said before 2. Else justification as I said should be ascribed to the nature of the act of faith it self 3. You may see what is the primary formal reason why faith Justifies by its inseparablility from the effect or event and which is the improper remote cause by its separability Now such a physical apprehension may be as such separated from the effect and would still be if it had not the further nature of a condition We see it plainly in all worldly things Every man that takes in his hand a conveyance of land shall not possess the land If you forcibly seize upon all a mans evidences and writings you shall not therefore possess his estate If a traytor snatch a pardon by violence out of anothers hand he is not therefore pardoned But more of this under the next 4. And for your passive faith I cannot conceive how it should as passive have any Moral good in it as is said much less justifie us And so when God saith that without faith it is impossible to please God we shall feign that to be justifying faith which hath nothing in it self that can please God and how it can justifie that doth not please I know not I know in genere entis the Divels please God They are his creatures and naturally Good as Ens bonum convertuntur but in genere moris I know not yet how pati quatenus pati can please him For it doth not require so much as liberty of the will The reason of Passion is from the Agent As Suarez dis 17. § 2. Secundum praecisas rationes formales loquendo Passio est ab Actione non è converso Ideoque vera est propria haec causalis locutio Quia agens agit materia recipit Now sure all Divines as well as the free-will-men do acknowledge that there can be no pleasing worth or vertue where there is not liberty And Suarez saith truly in that T. 1. disp 19 pag. mihi 340. Addimus vero hanc facultatem quatenus libera est non posse esse nisi Activam seu è converso facultatem non posse esse liberam nisi sit activa quatenus activa est Probatur sic Nam Paisso ut Passio non potest esse Libera patienti sed solum quatenus Actio à qua talis Passio provenit illi est libera Ergo Libertas formaliter ac praecise non est in potentia patiente ut sic sed in potentia Agente Vide ultra probationem 5. Yea I much fear lest this Passive Doctrine do lay all the blame of all mens infidelity upon God or most at least For it maketh the unbeliever no otherwise faulty then a hard block for resisting the wedge which is but by an indisposition of the matter and so Originall indisposition is all the sin For as Aquinas saith Malum in Patiente est vel ab imperfectione vel defectu agentis vel indispositione Materiae 1. q. 49. a. 1. c. 3. My third proposition is that the Receptivity or apprehension which is truly of the nature of faith is yet but its aptitude to its Justifying office and so a remote and not the direct proper formal reason And this is the main point that I insist on And it is evident in all that is said already and further thus If faith had been of that apprehending nature as it is and yet had not been made the condition in the gift or promise of God it would not have justified but if it had been made the condition though it had been no apprehending but as any other duty yet it would have justified therefore it is evident that the nearest proper reason of its power to justifie is Gods making it the condition of his gift and its receptive nature is but a remote reason 1. If faith would have justified though it had not been a condition then it must have justified against Gods will which is impossible It is God that justifieth and therefore we cannot be a cause of his Action 2. It is evident also from the nature of this moral reception which being but a willingness and consent cannot of its own nature make the thing our own but as it is by the meer will of the donor made the condition of his offer or gift If I am willing to be Lord of any Lands or Countreys it will not make me so but if the true owner say I will give them thee if thou wilt accept them then it will be so therefore it is not first and directly from the nature of the reception but first because that reception is made the condition of the gift If a condemned man be willing to be pardoned he shall not therefore be pardoned but if a pardon be given on condition he be willing or accept it then he shall have it If a poor woman consent to have a Prince for her husband and so to have his possessions it shall not therefore be done except he give himself to her on condition of her consent If it were a meer physical reception and we spoke of a possession de facto of somewhat that is so apprehensible then it would be otherwise as he that getteth gold or a pearl in his hand he hath such a possession But when it is but a moral improper reception though per actum physicum volendi vel consentiendâ— and when we speak of a possession in right of Law and of a relation and Title then it must need stand as aforesaid Donation or Imputation being the direct cause of our first constitutive justification therefore conditionality and not the natural receptivity of faith must needs be the proper reason of its justifying This is acknowledged by Divines Amesius saith Bellarm. Enervat T. 4. p. mâ—hi 314. Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam non est simpliciter per modum objecti sed per modum objecti nobis donati Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum omni â—cum eo Scriptura disertis verbis testatur Rom. 8.32 2. And that if any other sort or act of faith as well as this or any other grace would have justified if God had made it equally the condition of his gift is also past all doubt 1. Because the whole work of Justifying dependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and
to use any more distinctions then these few and therefore I will add no more about this Term. As to the term Evangelical Righteousness may be so called in a four-fold sense 1. Either because it is that righteousness which the Covenant or Law of Grace requireth as its Condition Or 2. Because its a Righteousness revealed by the Gospel Or 3. Because it is Given by the Gospel 4. Or because it 〈◊〉 ◠perfect fulfilling of the Precepts of the Gospel By a personal Righteousness we mean here not that which is ours by meer Imputation but that which is founded in somewhat Inherent in us or performed by us Necessity is 1. of a meer Antecedent 2. Or of a Means We mean the last Means are either causes or conditions I shall now by the help of these few distinctions give you the plain truth in some Propositions both Negatively and Affirmatively as followeth Proposition 1. It is confessed by all that know themselves or man and the Law that none of us have a Personal universal Righteousness For then there were no sin nor place for confession or pardon or Christ Prop. 2. And therefore we must all confess that in regard of the Preceptive part of the Law of works we are all unjust and cannot be justified by the deeds of the Law or by our works Prop. 3. And in regard of the Commination of that Law we are all under guilt and the Curse and are the children of wrath and therefore cannot be justified by that Law or by our works Both these are proved by Paul at large so that none have a personal Legal Righteousness Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper satisfaction of his own for the pardon of sin and escaping the curse of the Law But only Christs Satisfaction that fulfilled the Law and became a curse for us Prop. 5. No man can plead any merit of his own for procuring the Reward unless as actions that have the promise of a Reward are under Christ improperly called merits But our righteousness of this sort is only the merit and purchase of Christ and the free gift of the Gospel in him Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfectly justifiable by the perfect precepts of the Law of works And therefore we have no legal personal Righteousness at all that can properly be so called but are all corrupt and become abominable there being none that doth good no not one Imperfect legal righteousness is an improper speech it is properly no legal righteousness at all but a less degree of unrighteousness The more to blame they that call sanctification so Prop. 7. No man can say that he is a Co-ordinate con-Con-cause with Christ in his Justification or that he hath the least degree of a satisfactory or Meritorious Righteousness which may bear any part in co-ordination with Christs righteousness for his justification or salvation Prop. 8. We have not any personal Evangelical Righteousness of perfect obedience to the Precepts of Christ himself whether it be the Law of Nature as in his hand or the Gospel positives Prop. 9. Even the Gospel personal Righteousness of outward works though but in sincerity and not perfection is not necessary no not as an antecedent to our Justification at the first Prop. 10. External works of Holiness are not of absolute necessity to Salvation for it is possible that death may suddenly after Conversion prevent opportunity and then the inward faith and repentance will suffice Though I think no man can give us one instance of such a man de facto not the thief on the cross for he confessed prayed reproved the other c. Prop. 11. Where sincere Obedience is Necessary to Salvation it is not all the same Acts of obedience that are of Necessity to all men or at all times for the Matter may vary and yet the sinecerity of obedience continue But some special Acts are of Necessity to the sincerity Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness as having a perfect conformity to the Law But not so an Evangelical Righteousness for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits that he was neither obliged to fulfill nor capable of it If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law Christs righteousness was in some sort the righteousness of the Law of works for he merited all the reward of that Law But it was principally the righteousness of the special Covenant of Redemption between the Father and him but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man he did not repent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer If Righteousness be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law then Christs sufferings were neither a strictly legal or an Evangelical righteousness For the Law required the supplicium ipsius delinquentis and knew no Surety or Substitute But thus Christs sufferings were a Pro-Legal-righteousness as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening but a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver which was equivalent and so a valuable consideration why the Law should not be fulfilled by our damnation but dispensed with by our pardon So that the Commination was the cause of Christs sufferings and he suffered materially the same sort of Death which the Law threatened But most strictly his sufferings were a Righteous fulfilling his part of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father But in no propriety were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace against the Despisers or neglecters of Grace I mean that proper to the Gospel Prop. 13. Christs righteousness is well called our Evangelical Righteousness both as it is Revealed by the Gospel and conferred by it and opposed to the legal way of Justification by perfect personal Righteousness So that by calling our own personal righteousness Evangelical we deny not that Title to Christs but give it that in a higher respect and much more Prop. 14. No personal righteousness of ours our faith or repentance is any proper cause of our first Justification or of our entering into a justifyed state Though as they remove Impediments or are Conditions they may improperly be called causes So much for the Negative Propositions Affirm Prop. 1. That a Godly man hath a particular righteousness or may be Just in a particular cause there is no man can deny unless he will make him worse then the Devil for if the Devil may be falsly accused or belyed he is just in that particular cause Prop. 2. All Christians that I know do confess an Inherent Righteousness in the Saints and the necessity of this righteousness to Salvation So that this can be no part of our Controversie Prop. 3. Consequently all must confess that Christs righteousness imputed is not our only righteousness Yea that the righteousness of Pardon and Justification from sin is no further necessary then men are sinners and therefore the less need any
neither this act nor that act nor any act but qua justificans noteth only its respect to Justification rather then to Sanctification or other benefits As when I kindle a fire I thereby occasion both Light and Heat by putting to the fewel And if you speak of that act of mine qua calefaciens or qua illuminans this doth not distinguish of the nature of the act but of the Respect that the same Act hath to several effects or consequents Mr. W. Argument 10. If Christ only as crucified be the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption and Justification then Christ crucified is the only object of faith as Justifying But Ergo. Answ 1. The consequence of the Major is vain and an proved More then the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption is the object of justifying faith 2. The Minor is no small errour in the Judgement of most Protestants who maintain that Christs active Obedience and suffering life are also the Meritorious cause of our Justification and not only his Crucifixion Mr. W. Argument 11. If Christ as a servant did satisfie Gods Justice then he is so to be believed on to Justification But as a servant he did satisfie Gods Justice Ergo. Answ 1. I grant the conclusion Christ as a servant is to be believed in 2. But if only was again forgotten I further answer 1. I deny the consequence of the Major because Christ is to be believed on for Justification in other respects even in all essential to his Office and not only as satisfying I instanced before in Obeying Rising Judging from express Scripture 2. If the conclusion were granted it s against you and not for you For 1. Active obedience is as proper to a servant as suffering 2. Christ Taught the Church as a servant to his Father and is expresly called A Minister of the Circumcision So that these you yield the objects of this faith Mr. W. Argument 12. If none can call Christ Lord before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not an Accepting him as Lord. The Minor is true because none can call him Lord but by the Spirit and the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith after we believe Answ Any thing must serve 1. Both Major and Minor are such as are not to be swallowed in the lump If by Call you mean the call of the voyce then the consequence of the Major is vain and groundless For a man may believe in Christ with the heart as Lord and Saviour before he call him so with the mouth But if by Call you mean Believe then the Minor is false so confessed by all Protestants and Christians that ever I heard from of this point till now For they all confess that faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher and Head c. is the fides quae justificat or is of necessity to be present with the believing in his blood that a man may be justified Never did I hear till now that we first believe in Christ as dying only and so are justified before we believe in him as Lord and it seems before we are his Subjects or Disciples and that is before we are Christians 2. To your proof of the Minor I answer 1. It is no proof because the Text saith only that No man can call him Lord but by the Spirit but our question is of Believing and not of Calling which is Confessing 2. Many Expositors take it but for a common gift of the Spirit that 's there spoken of and do you think Justification must needs precede such common gifts 3. But if it had been Believe in stead of Call it s nothing for you For I easily grant that no man can believe in Christ as Lord but by the Spirit but I deny that this gift of the Spirit is never received till after that we believe and are justified And because it seems you judge that Believing in Christ to Justification is without the Spirit I pray answer first what we have said against the Arminians and Augustine against the Pelagians for the contrary Who would have thought that you had held such a point 4. How could you wink so hard as not to see that your Argument is as much against your self as me if you do but turn it thus If none can call Christ Jesus or the Saviour or believe in him to Justification before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not the accepting him as a Saviour The Minor is proved because none can call him Jesus or believe to Justification but by the Spirit This is as wise and strong an Argument as the other and all one See 1 Iob. 4.15 5.5 Believing in Christ as Saviour is as much of the Spirit is believing in him as Lord. 5. The Text makes against you 1 Cor 12.3 For there when Paul would denominate the true Christian faith or Confession he maketh Christ as Lord the Object Mr. W. Argument 13. If the promise of Salvation be the proper object of justifying faith then not the commands of Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo Answ 1. The conclusion is nothing to our Question which is not of Commands but of Christ as Lord. It may be you know no difference between the Relation and subsequent Duties between the Authority and the Command between subjection and obedience 2. The Minor is false If by proper you mean Only and if not the consequence is vain and null For the Person of Christ and his Office and the fruits of his Office even Pardon yea and Glory are the true Objects of justifying Faith Mr. W. Argument 14. If we are not justified both by Righteousness Inherent and Imputed then not by obeying Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo. Answ What 's this to the Question 1. About Justification by Righteousness Imputed or Inherent we spoke before 2. The conclusion never was acquainted with our Question Again it seems you cannot or will not distinguish between Relative subjection and actual obedience A man may become your servant and so have the Priviledges of a servant by covenant before he obey you A woman in Marriage may subject her self to you and have Interest in your estate even by that Marriage which promiseth subjection as well as Love without excluding the first from being any condition of her Interest and all this before she obey you 3. Your consequence would follow as much against your self as me For Believing in Christ as a Ransom is as truly a particular Inherent Righteousness as believing in him as Lord. 4. We are justified by Righteousness Inherent as a particular righteousness though not as a Universal as subordinate to Christs Righteousness that it may be ours though not in co-ordination with it Mr. W. Argument 15. If our accepting of Christ as Lord and Law-giver be not properly or formally faith nor properly to be called obedience then we are not formally justified by faith in him as Lord nor by our obedience to him as
will believe him shall no further be disturbed by me in his belief I doubt I have wearied the Reader already and therefore I shall only add a few words about a few more of the most considerable passages in his Book Some other of Mr. Warners passages of most importance considered Pag. 385. MR. W. saith It 's worth the observing how to evade the Distinction of the Acts of faith he saith that faith is one act in a moral sense as Taking a man to be my Prince Teacher Physitian c. and not in a physical sence for so it is many acts c. And he confuteth me thus Here Reader see the wit or forgetfulness of the man who to maintain his own ground doth often consider faith as Physically seated in the understanding and will but when we assault him will not allow us any Physical but a moral Acception of it Answer A most gross untruth and that 's an Arguing that Faith needeth not Your forgery is not only without ground and contrary to my plain and frequent words but contrary to the express words that you draw your Observation from I say faith Physically taken is many acts but morally taken it is one work Hence you call out to the Reader to observe that I will not allow you any Physical but a Moral Acception of it Is it fit to Dispute with such dealing as this Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Physical Act except them of late that take it to be but a Passion and a Nominal action Surely all know that it is an Act in order of Nature before it is a moral act Actus moralis is first actus Physicus Though Moraliter actus i. e. actus Reputativus may be but a non-acting Physically He that wilfully famisheth his own child doth kill him morally or reputatively and so is moraliter agens that is Reputative But he that cherisheth him is an Agent natural and moral that is Ethical or Vertuous I wonder what made you think me of such an opinion that I have so much wrote against He next saith that Though by one moral act we receive divers benefits yet we receive them to divers purposes Answer True But many such passages of yours are to no purpose and such is this impertinent to the business Page 391. He comes to my Distinction where I say that ex parte Christi he satisfieth Justice as a Ransom and Teacheth us as our Master and Ruleth us as our King yet ex parte nostri it is but one and the same entire faith that is the condition of our Title to his several benefits From hence he ingeniously gathereth that I say That faith hath but one respect to those benefits and is not diversified by several acts and deny the necessity of these distinct acts in reference to the several benefits of Christ Whereas I only maintained that though the acts be Physically distinct yet they are not distinct conditions of our Interest in the benefits but the same entire faith is the one condition of them all Hereupon he learnedly addresseth himself to prove that faith hath several acts And he that thinketh it worth his time to transcribe and confute his Arguments let him do it for I do not Page 401. He thinks We need not dispute whether the Reception of Christ by faith be moral or Physical however it is not an improper but proper reception Answ 1. It seems then we need not dispute whether Christs body be every where and whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat 2. And whereas Recipere in its first and proper signification was wont to be pati now it is agere And whereas consent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically now it is becoma a proper Reception Page 303.304 Reasoning against me he saith The nearest formal Reason of a Believers Interest is not Gods making it a condition which is the remote reason thereof but a Believers fulfilling the condition c. Answ 1. Here he changeth the question from What is the nearest reason of saiths Interest to What is the nearest reason of the Believers Interest To the first I say Its being made the condition of the Promise To the second I say The Promise or grant it self 2. He findeth a learned Confutation for me viz. That it is not Gods making but the fulfilling the condition that is the formal Reason Answ Performance that is Believing maketh faith to be faith and exist but the Promise makes that the condition I spoke de esse and he de existere And yet I usually say that The nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification iâ— as it is the condition of the Promises fulfilled that I might joyn both 3. Note that in this his Assertion he granteth me the sum of all that I desire For if this be true then it is not the Nature or the Instrumentality of faith that is the nearest reason as is usually said Page 200. He doth as solemnly call his Adversarie ad partes as if he were in good sadness to tell him what is the causality of works is Justification And falling to his enumeration he tells us that The particle A or Ab notes the peculiar causality of the efficient the particle Ex notes the material cause the particle Pâ—r or By the formal cause the particle Propter the final cause Answ I must erave pardon of the Reader while I suppose all this to be currant that I may answer ad hominâ—m And then 1. It seems faith is not the efficient cause and therefore not the Instrumental cause For A or ab is not affixed to it in this business 2. It seems then that faith is the formal cause of Justification because we are said to be Justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.22 25 30 passim By Faith So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Instrumental efficient cause 3. Hence it seems also that faith even the same faith is the material cause too For most certainly we are said to be justified ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.26 30. Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16 3.8 7 5 9 22 24. 5.5 Jam. 2.24 Whether ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do indeed express an Instrumental efficient I leave to consideration But sure I am it fitly expresseth the Interest of a condition And if Mr. W. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Righteousness it must be but of our subordinate particular Evangelical righteousness which consisteth in fulfilling the condition of Justification Chap. 5. pag. 29.30 31. He spends a Chapter to open to us the meaning of fides qua Justificat And prosesseth that it is the Carad controversia yea it was the remembrance of this distinction and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Discourse and that it is the basis of his
hereabout are such as if they were held practically and after the proper sense of their expressions would be a great hinderance to salvation if not plainly hazard it And therefore the question is not to be cast by as needless or unprofitable It is so neer the great matters of our Redemption Justification and the nature of faith that it is it self the greater And if Amesius say true that truths are so concatenated that every Error must by consequence overthrow the foundation then it must be so in this The consequents shall be mentioned anon in the Arguments where it will be more seasonable And in great matters it is not a contemptible Error which consisteth but in mis-naming and mis-placing them It is a very great help to the clear and full understanding of Truths to have right Notions and Methods And the contrary may prove dangerous to many others when the particular Patrons of those mistakes may be in no danger by them For perhaps their first Notions may be righter than their second and they may not see the consequents of their mistakes and yet when such mistakes in terms and methods shall be commended to the world other men that hear and read their words and know not their hearts and better apprehensions are like enough to take them in the most obvious or proper sense and by one disorder to be led to more and to swallow the Consequents as well as the misleading Premises And therefore I must needs say that this point appeareth of such moment in my eyes that I dare not desert that which I confidently take to be the Truth nor sacrifice it to the honor or pleasure of man For the explication of the terms it is needless to say much and I have neither time for nor mind of needless work By Justification here we mean not either Sanctification alone or sanctification and remission conjunct as making up our Righteousness as the Papists do though we deny not but sometime the word may be found in Scripture in some such sense For thus it is past controversie that our justification that is our sanctification as to all that followeth faith is as much if not much more from our belief in Christ as Teacher and King as from our belief in him as a Ransome But by Justification we mean that Relative Change which Protestants ordinarily mean by this word which we need not here define The Preposition By when we speak of being justified by faith is not by all men taken in the same sense First Sometime it s used more strictly and limitedly to signifie only an efficiency or the Interest of an Efficient cause And thus some Divines do seem to take it when they say that we are justified by faith in Christs blood and Righteousness and not by faith in him as a Teacher or a Lord which occasioneth the Papists to say our difference is wider then indeed it is For the word By hath an ambiguity and in their sence we yield their Negative though not their Affirmative in the last-mentioned conclusion Secondly Sometime the word By is used to signifie a Conditionality or the Interest of a condition only in special And thus we take it when we explain our selves in what manner it is that we are justified by faith and by these questioned acts in particular And therefore those Protestants that dispute against us who are for the Affirmative do if I understand them deny only the propriety of the phrase which we use but not the thing or sense which we express by it for they grant that these acts of faith are Conditions of our Justification when they have never so much disputed that we are not justified by them and so a small syllable of two letters is much of the matter of their controversie Thirdly sometime this word is used to signifie the Interest of any other cause as well as the Efficient and that either generally or especially of some one This Paper is white By the whiteness as the formal cause we are moved to a godly life By God and salvation as the final cause c. Fourthly Sometime the term By is taken yet more largely and fitly enough for all or any Means in General or the interest of any means in the attainment of the End And so it comprehendeth all Causes even those Per accidens and Conditions as well as Causes and all that doth but remove impediments And in this comprehensive sense we take it here in the Question though when we come to determine what is the special Interest of faith in Justification I take it in the second sense Take notice also That I purposely here use this phrase we are Justified by Believing or by Faith rather than these justifying faith or Faith doth justifie us And I here foretell you that if I shall at any time use these last expressions as led to it by those with whom I deal it is but in the sense as is hereafter explained The Reasons why I choose to stick to this phrase rather then other are First Because this only is the Scripture phrase and the other is not found in Scripture that I remember It is never said that Faith doth justifie us though it be said that we are justified by faith And if any will affirm that I may use that phrase which is not found in Scripture he cannot say I must use it And in a Controverted case especially about such Evangelical truths the safety of adhering to Scripture phrase and the danger of departing from it is so discernable and specially when men make great use of their unscriptural phrases for the countenancing of their opinions I have the more reason to be cautelous Secondly Because the phrases are not alwaies of one and the same signification The one is more comprehensive then the other if strictly taken To be justified by faith is a phrase extensive to the Interest of any Medium whatsoever And there are Media which are not Causes But when we say that Faith doth justifie us or call it justifying Faith we express a Causality if we take the word strictly Though this last phrase may signifie the Interest of a bare Condition yet not so properly and without straining as the former The Reverend Author of the seond Treatise of Justification is of the same mind as to the use of the terms but he conjectures another reason for the Scripture use then I shall ever be perswaded of viz. that it is because Credere is not Agere but Pati to Believe is to Suffer and not to Act that it is a Grammatic all Action but Physically a Passion Though I think this no truer then that my brains are made of a looking glass and my heart of marble yet is there somwhat in this Reverend mans opinion that looks toward the truth afar off For indeed it intimateth that as to Causality or Efficiency faith is not Active in the justifying of a sinner but is a meer condition or
act it self and therefore it is not faith as faith that is as it is an apprehension of Christ or recumbency on him that Justifyeth nor yet as an Instrument thus acting The nature of the act is but its aptitude to its office or justifying Interest and not the formal cause of it Proposition 6. No work or act of man is any true proper cause of his justification as Justification is commonly taken in the Gospel neither Principal or Instrumental The highest Interest that they can have is but to be a condition of our Justification and so a Dispositio moralis which therefore some call cansa dispositiva and some causa sine qua non and it s indeed but a Nominall cause and truly no cause at all Proposition 7. Whatsoever works do stand in opposition to Christ or disjunct from him yea or that stand not in a due subordination to him are so far from Justifying even as conditions that they are sins which do deserve condemnation Proposition 8. Works as taken for the Imperate Acts of Obedience external distinct from the first Radical Graces are not so much as conditions of our Justification as begun or our being put into a Justified state Proposition 9. Repentance from dead works denying our our selves renouncing our own Righteousness c. much less external Obedience are not the receptive condition of our Justification as faith is that is Their nature is not to be an actual Acceptance of Christ that is they are not faith and therefore are not designed on that account to be the Condition of our Justification Proposition 10. God doth not justifie us by Imputing our own faith to us in stead of perfect Obedience to the Law as if it were sufficient or esteemed by him sufficient to supply its place For it is Christs Righteousness that in point of value and merit doth supply its place nor doth any work of ours justifie us by satisfying for our sins for that 's the work of Christ the Mediator Our faith and love and obedience which are for the receiving and improving of him and his Righteousness and so stand in full subordination to him are not to be made co-partners of his office or honor Affirm Proposition first We are justified by the merits of a perfect sinless Obedience of Christ together with his sufferings which he performed both to the Law of nature the Law of Moses and the Law which was proper to himself as Mediator as the subject obliged Proposition 2. There is somewhat in the nature of faith it self in specie which makes it fit to be elected and appointed by God to be the great summary Condition of the Gospel that it be Receptive an Acceptance of Christ is the nature of the thing but that it be a condition of our Justification is from the will and constitution of the Donor and Justifier Proposition 3. There is also somewhat in the nature of Repentance self-denyal renouncing all other Saviours and our own righteousness desiring Christ loving Christ intending God and Glory as our end procured by Christ confessing sin c. which make them apt to be Dispositive Conditions and so to be comprized or implyed in faith the summary Receptive condition as its necessary attendants at least Proposition 4. Accordingly God hath joyned these together in his Promise and constitution making faith the summary and receptive Condition and making the said acts of Repentance self-denyal renouncing our own righteousness disclaiming in heart Justification by the works of the Law and the renouncing of all other Saviours also the desiring and loving of Christ offered and the willing of God as our God and the renouncing of all other Gods and so of the world flesh and devil at least in the resolution of the heart I say making these the dispositive Conditions which are ever implyed when faith only is expressed some of them as subservient to faith and perhaps some of them as real parts of faith it self Of which more anon Proposition 5. The Gospel promiseth Justification to all that will Believe or are Believers To be a Believer and to be a Disciple of Christ in Scripture sense is all one and so is it to be a Disciple and to be a Christian therefore the sense of the promise is that we shall be justified if we become true Christians or Disciples of Christ and therefore justifying faith comprehendeth all that is essential to our Discipleâ—ship or Christianity as its constitutive causes Proposition 6. It is not therefore any one single Act of faith alone by which we are justified but it is many Physical acts conjunctly which constitute that faith which the Gospel makes the condition of Life Those therefore that call any one Act or two by the name of justifying faith and all the rest by the name of works and say that it is only the act of recumbency on Christ as Priest or on Christ as dying for us or only the act of apprehending or accepting his imputed Righteousness by which we are justified and that our Assent or Acceptance of him as our Teacher and Lord our desire of him our love to him our renouncing other Saviours and our own Righteousness c. are the works which Paul doth exclude from our Justification and that it is Jewish to expect to be justified by these though but as Conditions of Justification these persons do mistake Paul and pervert the Doctrine of Faith and Justification and their Doctrine tendeth to corrupt the very nature of Christianity it self Though yet I doubt not but any of these acts conceited meritorious or otherwise as before explained in the Negative if men can believe contradictories may be the matter of such works as Paul excludeth And so may that one act also which they appropriate the name of justifying faith to Proposition 7. Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a condition of our continuance in a state of Justification or of our not losing it And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord at our departure hence Proposition 8. Our Faith Love and Works of Love or sincere Obedience are conditions of our sentential Justification by Christ at the particular and general Judgement which is the great Justification And so as they will prove our Interest in Christ our Righteousness so will they materially themselves justifie us against the particular false Accusation of being finally impenitent Unbelievers not Loving not obeying sincerely For to deny a false accusation is sufficient to our Justification Proposition 9. As Glorification and Deliverance from Hell is by some called Executive pardon or Justification so the foresaid acts are conditions of that execution which are conditions of Justification by the sentence of the Judge Proposition 10. As to a real inherent Justice or Justification in this life we have it in part in our Sanctification and Obedience and in the life to come we shall have it in perfection So much for the
sin then I did but nominally and hypocritically take him for my Saviour To take him for my Teacher and become his Disciple importeth my Learning of him as necessary to the benefit And in humane contracts it is so Barely to take a Prince for her husband may entitle a woman to his honours and lands But conjugal fidelity is also necessary for the continuance of them for Adultery would cause a divorce Consent and listing may make a man your Souldier but obedience and service is as necessary to the Continuance and the Reward Consent may make a man your servant without any service and so give him entertainment in your family But if he do not actually serve you these shall not be continued nor the wages obtained Consent may enter a Scholar into your School but if he will not Learn of you he shall not be continued there For all these after-violations cross the ends of the Relations Consent may make you the subject of a Prince but obedience is necessary to the continuance of your Priviledges All Covenants usually tye men to somewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends The Covenant-making may admit you but it s the Covenant-keeping that must continue you in your priviledges and perfect them See more in my Confess pag. 47. 3. But I further answer you that according to the sense of your party of the terms faith and works I deny your consequence For with them Faith is Works And though in Pauls sense we are not at all justified by works and in Iames his sense we are not at first justified by works Yet in the sense of your party we are justified by works even at first For the Accepting of Christ for our King and Prophet is Works with them and this is Pauls faith by which he and all are justified Repentance is works with them And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon The Love and Desire of Christ our Saviour is works with them but this is part of the faith that Paul was justified by The like I may say of many acts of Assent and other acts Treat Lect. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is justified by fulfilling a Condition though he be thereunto enabled by grace yet he is just and righteous in himself But all justified persons as to Iustification are not righteous in themselves but in Christ their Surety and Mediator Answ 1. If this were true in your unlimited latitude Inherent Righteousness were the certainest evidence of damnation For no man that had inherent Righteousness i. e. Sanctification could be justified or saved But I am loth to believe that 2. This Argument doth make as much against them that take Faith to be the Condition of Justification and so look to be justified by it as a Condition as against them that make Repentance or Obedience the Condition And it concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Justification I am loth to dissent from you but I am loather to believe that all those are unjustified that take faith for the Condition of Justification They are hard Conclusions that your Arguments infer 3. Righteousness in a mans self is either Qualitaetive or Relative called imputed As to the later I maintain that all the justified are Righteous in themselves by an Imputed Relative Righteousness merited for them by Christ and given to them And this belief I will live and die in be the grace of God Qualitative and Active Righteousness is threefold 1. That which answers the Law of works Obey perfectly and live 2. That which answers the bare letter of Moses Law without Christ the sense and end which required an operous task of duty with a multitude of sacrifices for pardon of failings which were to be effectual only through Christ whom the unbelieving Jews understood not 3. That righteousness which answers the Gospel imposition Repent and Believe As to the first of these A righteousness fully answering the Law of nature I yield your Minor and deny your Major A man may be justified by fulfilling the condition of the Gospel which giveth us Christ to be our Righteousness to answer the Law and yet not have any such righteousness qualitative in himself as shall answer that Law Nay it necessarily implyeth that he hath none For what need he to perform a Condition for obtaining such a Righteousness by free gift from another if he had it in himself And as to the second sort of Righteousness I say that it is but a nominal righteousness consisting in a conformity to the Letter without the sense and end and therefore can justifie none besides that none fully have it So that the Mosaeical Righteousness so far as is necessary to men is to be had in Christ and not in themselves But the performance by themselves of the Gospel Condition is so far from hindring us from that gift that without it none can have it But then as to the third sort of righteousness qualitative I answer He that performeth the Gospel Condition of Repenting and Believing himself is not therefore Righteous in himself with that righteousness qualitative which answereth the Law of works But he that performeth the said Gospel Conditions is Righteous in himself 1. Qualitatively and actively with that righteousness which answers the Gospel Constitution He that believeth shall be saved c. which is but a particular Righteousness by a Law of Grace subordinated to the other as the Condition of a free gift 2. And Relatively by the Righteousness answering the Law of Works as freely given by Christ on that Condition This is evident obvious necessary irrefragable truth and will be so after all opposition Treat pag. 228. Yea I think if it be well weighed it will be found to be a contradiction to say they are Conditions and yet a Causa sine qua non of our Justification for a causa sine qua non is no Cause at all but a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a Moral efficiency and is a Causa cum qua not a sine qua non Answ 1. You do but think so and that 's no cogent Argument I think otherwise and so you are answered 2. And Lawyers think otherwise as is before shewed and more might be and so you are over-answered A Condition qua talis which is the strictest acception is no Cause at all though the matter of it may be meritorious among men and so causal If you will not believe me nor Lawyers nor custom of speech then remember at least what it is that I mean by a Condition and make not the difference to lie where it doth not Think not your self sounder in matter of Doctrine but only in the sense of the Word Condition but yet do somewhat first to prove that too viz. that a Condition as such hath a moral efficiency Prove that if you are able Treat ib. If Adam had stood in his integrity though that confirmation would have been of
grace yet his works would have been a causall Condition of the blessedness promised In the Covenant of Grace though what man doth is by the gift of God yet look upon the same gift as our duty and as a Condition which in our persons is performed This inferreth some Moral Efficiency Answ 1. See then all you that are accounted Orthodox the multitude of Protestant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions what a case you have brought your selves into And rejoyce then all you that have against them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions for your Cause is better then some have made you believe and in particular this Reverend Author Yea see what a case he hath argued himself into while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were supposed in For he himself writeth against those that make Repentance to be but a sign and deny it to be a Condition to qualifie the subject for Iustification Treat of Iustif part 1. Lect. 20. And he saith that in some gross sins there are many Conditions requisite besides humiliation without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained and instanceth in restitution pag. 210. with many the like passages 2. Either you mean that Adams works would have been Causall quatenus a Condition performed or else quatenus meritorious ex natura materia or some other cause The first I still deny and is it that you should prove and not go on with naked affirmations The second I will not yield you as to the notion of meritorious though it be nothing to our question The same I say of your later instance of Gospel Conditions Prove them morally efficient qua tales if you can Treat ib. And so though in words they deny yet in deed they do exalt works to some kind of causality Answ I am perswaded you speak not this out of malice but is it not as unkind and unjust as if I should perswade men that you make God the Author of sin indeed though you deny it in words 1. What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my words Speak out and tell the world and spare me not But if it be words that you set against words 1. Why should you not believe my Negations as well as my supposed affirmations Am I credible only when I speak amiss and not at all when I speak right A charitable judgementi 2. And which should you take to be indeed my sense A naked term Condition expounded by you that never saw my heart and therefore know not how I understand it further then I tell you Or rather my express explication of that term in a sense contrary to your supposition â—ear all you that are impartial and judge I say A Condition is no Cause and Faith and Repentance are Conditions My Reverend Brother tells you now that in word I deny them to be efficient Causes but in deed I make them such viz. I make them to be what I deny them to be Judge between us as you see cause Suppose I say that Scripture is Sacred and withall I add that by Sacred I mean that which is related to God as proceeding from him and separated to him and I plead Etymologie and the Authority of Authors and Custom for my speech If my Reverend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitness of the word and say that sacer signifieth only execrabilis I will not be offended with him though I will not believe him but should so good and wise a man proclaim in print that sacer signifieth only execrabilis and therefore that though in word I call Scripture Sacred yet in deed I make it execrable I should say this were unkind dealing What! plainly to say that a Verbal controversie is a Real one and that contrary to my frequent published professions What is this but to say Whatever he saith I know his heart to be contrary Should a man deal so with your self now he hath somewhat to say for it For you first profess Repentance and Restitution to be a Condition as I do and when you have done profess Conditions to have a Moral Efficiency which I deny But what 's this to me that am not of your mind Treat pag. 229. A fifth Argument is that which so much sounds in all Books If good works be the effect and fruit of our Justification then they cannot be Conditions or Causa sine qua non of our Iustification But c. Answ 1. I deny the Minor in the sense of your party Our first Repentance our first desire of Christ as our Saviour and Love to him as a Saviour and our first disclaiming of all other Saviours and our first accepting him as Lord and Teacher and as a Saviour from the Power of sin as well as the guilt all these are works with you and yet all these are not the effects of our Relative Justification nor any of them 2. As to External acts and Consequent internal acts I deny your Consequence taking it of continued or final Justification though I easily yield it as to our Justification at the first 1. All the acts of justifying faith besides the first act are as truly effects of our first Justification as our other graces or gracious acts are And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Justification Why not Conditions as well as Instruments or Causes Do you think that only the first instantaneous act of faith doth justifie and no other after through the course of our lives I prove the contrary from the instance of Abraham It was not the first act of his faith that Paul mentioneth when he proveth from him Justification by faith As it s no good Consequence Faith afterward is the effect of Iustification before therefore it cannot afterward justifie or be a Condition So it s no good Consequence as to Repentance Hope or Obedience 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Justification whereof they are the effect and which went before them which is granted you But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of continued or final Justification Sucking the brest did not cause life in the beginning therefore it is not a means to continue it It followeth not You well teach that the Justification at the last Judgement is the chief and most eminent Justification This hath more Conditions then your first pardon of sin had yea as many as your salvation hath as hath been formerly proved and may be proved more at large Treat pag. 230. By this we may see that more things are required to our Salvation then to our Iustification to be possessors of heaven and than it should be to entitle us thereto Answ 1. It s true as to our first Justifying and its true as to our present continued state because perseverance is still requisite to salvation But it s not true as to
that bona opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justificandum in regard of our first justification I dare not say they are Antecedents or media ordinata Where you add what is that to you that make the righteousness of the Covenant of grace to be made ours upon our godly working c. I answer 1. I have shewed it is as much as I say if not more upon intending but a condition or medium ordinatum 2. I never said what you say I maintain in phrase or sense if the word made intend either efficiency or any causality or the first possession of Righteousness 3. You much use the harsh phrase of working as here Godly working as mine which I doubt whether ever I uttered or used And the term works I little use but in the explication of James For I told you that I disclaim works in Pauls sense Rom. 4.4 which make the reward not of grace but of debt You add If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith hath no peculiar instrumentality in our justification but what other graces have then you had hit the mark Answ I confess Sir you now come to the point in difference But do you not hereby confess that I give no more to works then you but only less to faith Why then do you still harp upon the word works as if I did give more to them the task you now set me is to prove that faith doth no more and not that works do so much That faith is not an instrument and not that love or obedience are conditions And to this I answer you 1. I have in my book said somewhat to prove faith no instrument of justifying and you said nothing against it Why then should I aim at this mark 2. I think I have proved there that faith justifieth primarily and properly as the condition of the Covenant and but remotely as A receiving justification this which you call the instrumentality being but the very formal nature of the act and so the quasi materia or its aptitude to the office of Justifying And because I build much on this supposition I put it in the Queries which you judge impertinent 3. Yet if you will understand the word instrument laxely I have not any where denyed faith to have such an instrumentality that is receiving or apprehensiveness above other graces Only I deny and most confidently deny that that is the formal proper or neerest cause of faith's justifying But the formal reason is because God hath made it the condition of the Covenant promising justification to such receiving which else would have no more justified then any other act And therefore so far as others are made conditions and the promise to us on them they must needs have some such use as well as faith And that they are conditions you confess as much as I. 4. But what if I be mistaken in this point what is the danger If faith should deserve the name of an instrument when I think it is but a condition 1. Is it any danger to give less to faith then others while I give no less to Christ For if you should think I gave less to Christ then others I should provoke you again and again to shew wherein 2. I deny nothing that Scripture saith It saith not that faith is an instrument perhaps you will tell me Veronius argues thus But I mean it is neither in the letter nor plain sense and then I care not who speaks it if true 3. You make man an efficient cause of justifying himself For the instrument is an efficient cause And what if I dare not give so much to man is there any danger in it or should I be spoke against for the Doctrine of obedience as if I gave more to man then you when I give so much less 4. Those that dissent from me do make the very natural act of faith which is most essential to it and inseparable from it as it from it self viz. Its apprehension of Christs Righteousness to be the proper primary reason of its justifying What if I dare not do so but give that glory to God and not to the nature of our own act and say that Fides quae recipit Justificat sed non qua recipit primarily but as it is the condition which the free justifier hath conferred this honour upon is there any danger in this and will there be joy in heaven for reducing a man from such an opinion You say What more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato which are not in actu justificationis The fastning the head to the body c. Answ 1. You said before that they are Antecedents Media ordinata and then they are sure conditions in justificando as well as in justificato 2. Your mention of the condition in homine vidente is besides our business and is only of a natural condition or qualification in genere naturae When we are speaking only of an active condition in genere moris The former is improperly the later properly called a condition 3. If this be your meaning I confess there are many natural or passive qualifications necessary which are no active or proper moral conditions in a Law-sense But this is nothing to the matter 4. The phrases of Conditions in justificato in actu justificationis are ambiguous and in the Moral sense improper Our question is whether they are conditions ad justificationem recipiendam Which yet in regard of time are in actu justificationis but not conditiones vel qualificationes ipsius actus And if you did not think that repentance is a condition ad justificationem recipiendam and so in actu justificationis how can you say it is medium ordinatum A medium as such essentially hath some tendency or conducibleness to its end 5. As obvious therefore as you think this is it is past the reach of my dull apprehension to conceive of your conditions in a judiciary sense which are in justificato for the obtaining of justification and not be both ad actum in actu justificationis for I suppose you are more accurate and serious then by the word condition to mean modum vel affectionem entis Metaphysicam vel subjecti alicujus adjunctum vel qualificationem in sense Physico when we are speaking only of conditions in sensu forensi And there are many thousand honest Christians as dull as I and therefore I do not think it can be any weighty point of faith which must be supported by such subtilties which are past our reach though obvious to yours God useth not to hang mens salvation on such School distinctions which few men can understand 6. And every such Tyro in Philosophy as I cannot reach your Phylosophical subtilty neither to understand that the fastning of the head to the body is not conditio in actu videntis though it be nothing to our purpose Indeed we may think it of more remote use
all but in the proper ordinary sence as an Instrument signifieth Causam quae influit in effectum per virtutem inferioris rationis as Suarez Stierius Arnisaeus c. Vel Instrumentum est quod ex directione alterius principalis agentis influit ad produceâ—dum effectum se nobiliorem ut Schibler c. So I utterly deny Faith to be an Instrument But I will first question whether it be a physical Instrument 2. Whether a moral 1. And for the first I have done it already for seeing our acute Divines have ceased to lay any claim to it as an active Instrument but only as a Passive therefore having disproved what they claim I have done enough to that 2. Yet I will add some more And 1. If it be a physical active Instrument it must have a physical active Influx to the producing of the Effect but so hath not Faith to the producing of our Justification Ergo c. The Major is apparent from the common definition of such Instruments The Minor will be as evident if we consider but what Gods Act in Justification is and then it would appear impossible that any act of ours should be such an Instrument 1. At the great Justification at Judgement Christs act is to sentence us acquit and discharged and doth our Faith activè sixae influere ad hunc effectum Doth it intervene between Christ and the effect and so actively justifie us Who will say so 2. And the act by which God justifieth us here is by a Deed of Gift in his Gospel as I Judge Now 1. That doth immediately produce the effect only supposing Faith as a condition 2. And it is but a moral Instrumental cause it self and how faith can be a Physical I know not 3. Nay the act is but a moral act such as a Statute or Bond acteth and what need Faith to be a physical Instrument 2. My second Reason is this It is generally concluded that Tota instrumenti causalit as est in usu applicatione It ceaseth to be an Instrument when it ceaseth to be used or acted by the principal cause But faith doth most frequently cease its action and is not used physically when we sleep or wholly mind other things Therefore according to this Doctrine faith should then cease its Instrumentality and consequently either we should all that while be unjustified and unpardoned or else be justified and pardoned some other way and not by faith All which is absurd and easily avoided by discerning faith to be but a Condition of our Justification or a Causa sine quae non 3. If Faith be a physical Instrument then it should justifie from a reason intrinsecal natural and essential to it and not from Gods meer ordination of it to this office by his Word of Promise but that were at least dangerous Doctrine and should not be entertained by them who truly acknowledge that it justifies not as a work much less then as a Physical reception which they call its Instrumentality The consequence of the Major is evident in that nothing can be more intrinsecal and essential to faith this faith then to be what it is viz. a Reception or acceptance of Christ or his Righteousness therefore if it justifie directly as such then it justifieth of its own Nature 4. It is to me a hard saying that God and Faith do the same thing that is Pardon and justifie and yet so they do if it be an Instrument of Justification For eadem est Actio Instrumenti principalis causae viz. quoad determinationem ad hunc effectum ut Aquinas Schibler c. I dare not say or think that Faith doth so properly effectively justifie and pardon us 5. It seems to me needless to feign this Instrumentality because frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora 6. Yea it derogateth from the work for as Scotus saith in 4. dist 45. q. 1. pag. mihi 239. D. Actio sine instrumento est perfectior quà m actio cum instrumento 7. And this Doctrine makes man to be the causa proxima of his own Pardon and Justification For it is man that believes and not God God is the causa prima but man the causa proxima credendi and so of justifying if Faith be an Instrument Or at least man is a cause of his own Pardon and Justification Yea faith being by Divines acknowledged our own Instrument it must needs follow that we justifie and forgive our selves Dr. Amesius saith Bellar. Enervat To. 4. li 6. p. mihi 315. Plurimum refert quia sicut sacramenta quamvis aliquo sâ—nsu possint dici Instrumenta nostra c. proprie tamen sunt Jnstrumenta Dei sic etiam fides quamvis possit vocari Instrumentum Dei quia Deus justificat nos ex fide per fidem proprie tamen est Instrumentum nostrum Deus nos baptizat pascit non nosmet ipsi Nos credimus in Christum non Deus Whether faith may be a moral Instrument I shall enquire when I have answered the next question which is Q 6. If faith were such a Physical Passive or Active Instrument whether that be the formal direct reason of its justifying and whether as it is it do justifie directly and primarily quatenus est apprehensio Christi justitioe vel Justificationis And this is it that I most confidently deny and had rather you would stick to in debate then all the rest for I ground many other things on it I affirm therefore 1. That faith justifieth primarily and directly as the condition on which the free Donor hath bestowed Christ with all his benefits in the Gospel-conveyance 2. And that if it were a meer Physical apprehension it would not justifie no nor do us any good 3. And that the apprehension called the receptivity which is truly its nature is yet but its aptitude to its justifying office and so a remote not the direct proper formal cause These three I will prove in order 1. And for the first it is proved 1. From the Tenor of the justifynâ—g Promise which still assureth Justification on the condition of Believing He that believeth and whosoever believeth and if thou believe do plainly and unquestionably express such a condition upon which we shall be justified and without which we shall not The Antinomians most unreasonably deny this 2. And the nature of Justification makes it unquestioinable for whether you make it a Law-act or an act of Gods own Judgement and Will determining of our state yet nither will admit of any intervening cause especially any act of ours but only a condition 3. Besides Conditions depend on the will of him that bestoweth the Gift and according to his Will they succeed but Instruments more according to their own fitness Now it is known well that Justification is an act of Gods meer free Grace and Will and therefore nothing can further conduce to Gods free act as on our part but by way
honour of faith Though that were not so dangerous as to derogate from Christ For I acknowledge faith the only condition of our first Remission and justification and the principal part of the condition of our justification as continued and consummate And if faith be an instrumental cause I do not give that honor from it to works for they are not so Nay I boldly again aver that I give no more to obedience to Christ then Divines ordinarily do that is to be the secondary part of the condition of continued and consummate justification Only I give not so much as others to faith because I dare not ascribe so much to man And yet men make such a noise with the terrible name of Justification by works the Lords own phrase as if I gave more then themselves to man when I give so much less And thus Sir I have according to your advice spent my self as you speak in aiming at that mark which you were pleased to set me And now I shall proceed to the rest of your exceptions My next answer to you was that If works under every notion are excluded as you say they are then repentance is excluded under the notion of a condition or preparative But repentance under that notion is not excluded Therefore not works under every notion To this you reply that Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which what is it but a plain yielding my Minor and so the cause For this is as much as I say If repentance be a work or act of ours and not excluded under the notion of a qualification or as you elsewhere yield a Medium ordinatum and a condition then works are not under every notion excluded And that repentance is not recipient how easily do I yeild to you But do you indeed think that when Paul excludeth the works of the Law that he excludeth them only as Recipient and not as qualifying If so as this answer seems to import seeing you will not have me here distinguish between works of Law and of Gospel or New Covenant then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I do or dare For I aver that Paul excludeth them even as qualifications yea and the very presence of them and that the Jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient To my next you say Whether Paul dispute what is our righteousness or upon what terms it is made ours it doth not much matter But I think it of very great moment they being Questions so very much different both in their sense and importance And whereas you think Paul speaks chiefly of the manner I think he speaks of both but primarily of the quasi materia and of the manner or means thereto but secondarily in reference to that So that I think the chief Question which Paul doth debate was Whether we are Justified by our own works or merits or by Anothers viz. the satisfaction of a surety which yet because it is no way made ours but by believing therefore he so puts the Question whether by works of the Law or by faith and so that he makes them two immediate opposites not granting any tertium I easily yield But of that before To the next you say that I cannot find such a figure for faith Relatively in my sense Answ And I conceive that faith in my sense may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours Doubtless acceptance of an offered Redeemer and all his benefits doth relate as properly to what is accepted viz. by the assent of the understanding initially and by the election and consent of the will consummately as a Physical Passive reception or instrumentality can do And also as it is a condition I make little doubt but it relateth to the thing given on that condition and that the very name of a condition is relative So that in my sense faith relateth to Christ two ways Whereof the former is but its very nature and so its aptitude to its office The later is that proper respect in which it immediately or directly justifieth Yet do I not mean as you seem to do as I gather by your phrase of putting Love and Obedience for Christs Righteousness For I conceive it may be put relatively and yet not strictly loco correlati for the thing related to when I say my hands or teeth feed me I do not put them instead of my Meat and yet I use the words relatively meaning my Meat principally and my teeth secondarily Neither do I mean that it relateth to Christs righteousness only or principally but first to himself And I doubt not but Love to Christ and Obedience to him as Redeemer do relate to him but not so fully clearly and directly express him as related to as Faith Faith being also so comprehensive a grace as to include some others It is a true saying that a poor woman that is marryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love and continued so by duty to her husband But it is more obscure and improper then to say she is made honourable by Marriage or taking such a man to her husband which includes love and implyeth duty and faithfulness as necessarily subsequent I conceive with Judicious Doctor Preston that faith is truly and properly such a consent contract or marriage with Christ Next to your similitude you say that I hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other Actions of sense will as well heal the wounded Christian To which I answer Similitudes run not on all four Thus far I believe that this holds 1. Christ was lift up on the Cross as the brazen Serpent was lift up 2. He was lift up for a cure to sin-stung souls as the brazen Serpent for the stung bodies 3. That as every one that looked on the Serpent was cured an easie condition so every one that believeth Christ to be the appointed Redeemer and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered and so trusteth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life 4. That as the cure of their bodies came not from any natural reason drawn from the eye or from any natural excellency or efficacy of seeing above hearing or feeling but meerly from the free will and pleasure of God who ordained that looking should be the condition of their cure So all those Acts usually comprized or implyed in the word believing which justifie do it not from any natural excellency efficacy or instrumentality but meerly from the good pleasure of the Law-giver And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith that is its very formal essence must not be given as the proper direct cause of its Justifying But that is its conditionality from the free appointment of God But on the other side 1. It was only one Act of one sense which was the condition of their cure but you will not say I believe that it is only one act of one faculty which justifieth however I will not 2. It
Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not I should raign over them bring them hither c. saith Amesius Medul l. 2. cap. 5. § 48. Opponuntur ista Infidelitas c. fidei non tantum qua tollunt Assensum illum Intellectus qui est ad fidem necessarius sed etiam qua inferunt includunt privationem illius Elections apprehensionis fidei quae est in Voluntate Surely an unwillingness to accept Christ for our Lord and Saviour is no small part of the condemning sin which we therefore call the rejecting of Christ The treading him under foot Neglecting so great Salvation Not willing to come to Christ for life Making light of him when they are invited to the marriage Mat. 22. and making excuses Not-kissiing the son Psal 2. with many the like which import the Wills refusal of Christ himself and not only its unwillingness to believe the Truth of the Promise or Declaration of the Gospel To your tenth Objection I answer by denying the consequence we speak of the soul as rational and not as sensitive or vegetative When the understanding Will receive Christ the whole soul doth it that is every faculty or the soul by a full entire motion in its several Actings to the Object presented both as true and good Your Joy Hope Fear are in the sensitive And Love as a Passion and as commonly taken And for Memory take it for an act of the Understanding or of Understanding and Imagination conjunct or for a third faculty as please your self it will not breed any difficulty in the case But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of Christ or any Object as Good I much question I take it rather for the shunning of an evil then the Reception of Good So much for your Objections I will next as impartially as I can consider your Answers to what I laid down for the proof of the Point in Question But first I must acknowledge that I have given you and others great advantage against the Doctrine of that Book by the immethodicalness and neglect of Art and not giving the Arguments in form which I then thought not so necessary as now I perceive it is for I was ready to yield wholly to Gibeeufs reasons against formal arguing Praefat. ante lib. 2. de Libertate The present expectation of death caused me to make that haste which I now repent yet though I see some oversights in the manner of expression I see no cause to change my mind in the Doctrine of it Also I must desire you to remember here that the proof lyeth on your part and not on mine Affirmanti incumbit probatio It is acknowledged by almost all that fides qua Justificat Justifying faith is a Receiving of Christ as Lord and not only as Saviour or Justifier And you and I are agreed on it that Faith justifieth not as an Instrument but as a Condition so that they who will go further here and maintain that yet Faith justifieth only As it Receiveth Christ as Justifier or as Saviour and not as King must prove what they say If I prove 1. that Faith justifieth as the Condition on performance whereof the Gift is conferred 2. And that this Faith which is the Condition is the Accepting of Christ as Christ or the Anointed King and Saviour both which are yielded me I must needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Christ as King doth as truly Justifie as the Receiving him as Priest or Justifier Yet I had rather not say that either Justifies because 1. it is no Scripture phrase 2. and seemeth to import an Efficiency but rather that we are justified by it which imports here but a conditionality and is the Scripture phrase Till you have proved your exclusion of faith in one respect from the Justifying Office and your confinement of it to the other my proof stands good I give you the entire condition and ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum multó minus dividendum And though those that assert the proper Instrumentality of faith in Justifying or else the meer natural conditionality may have something to say for their Division though with foul absurdities Yet what you can say who have escaped those conceits I cannot imagine Me thinks if faith Justifie as the condition of the Grant or Covenant and this condition be the Receiving of Christ as Lord and Saviour it should be impossible to exclude the receiving Christ as King from Justifying till you first exclude it from the said conditionality A Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia To Justifie therefore As the condition on which the Promise gives Christ and with him Justification must needs infer that we are justified by all whatsoever hath such a conditionality Yet as I said before when we intend to express not only or principally the Act of the Receiver but also or principally the Grace of the Giver then it is a fitter phrase to say we are Justified by faith in his Blood or by Receiving Christ the Saviour and Justifier because it fulliest and fitliest expresseth that Grace which we intend and thus Paul oft doth So that they who distinguish between Fides quae Justificat and Fides qua Justificat and admit that Act into the former which they exclude from the latter must prove what they say Fides qua justificat non Recipit Christum vel ut Regem vel sacerdotem sed tantum Justificat i. e. Qua est Conditio non est Receptio Nec qua Recipit Justificat i. e. Qua Receptio non est Conditio Materia forma non sunt confundenda Actus fidei est quasi materia vel Aptitudo tantum ad officium conditionalitatis Distinctio igitur ipsa est inepta Now to your Answers Pardon this prolixity First I must tell you that by that phrase the whole soul I mean the entire motion of the soul by Understanding and Willing to its Object both as True and Good For I know the whole soul may be said to understand in every Intellectual Action and to will in every act of willing But when it only understands or Assents and not willeth it doth not Act fully according to its Power nor according to the nature of its Object when the Goodness is neglected and the Truth only apprehended And it is not a compleat motion seeing the Acts of the understanding are but introductory or preparatory to those of the Will where the motion of the Rational soul is compleat And so my Argument stands thus If Justifying faith be the Act both of the understanding and the Will then it is not one single act only But c. Ergo c. Prob. Anteced Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ but Christ is Received by the Understanding and Will by the former incompleatly by the latter compleatly therefore Justifying faith is the Acting both of the Understanding and Will Probatur Minor Christ must be Received as Good and not only