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
following exercitation And what think you is the happy Light that deserveth all this ostentation Why 1. On the Negative we are satisfied that he means not What fides qua fides can do And then we are secure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adversaries cause 2. The Light then is all but this That qua here is not taken Reduplicative but specificative when by the particle qua or quatenus there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition as when we say man as a reasonable creature feeleth In this latter sence saith he I believe the particle qua or quatenus is taken when we do not say faith as faith but faith as Justifying viz. as a Grace designed to this act or operation of Justifying looks on Christ as Saviour Answ This Chapter was worth the observing For if this be the Basis of all the Exercitation and the Light that Generated all the rest the dispatch of this may serve for all It seems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Distinctions in the end of Castaneus and meeing with Reduplicative and specificative admired the distinction as some rare Discovery and this pregnant fruitful Distinction begot a Volume before it was half understood it self Had he but read the large Schemes for explaining Qua or Quatenus in others its like it would have either begot a larger Volume or by informing or confounding him have prevented this First he disowneth the Reduplicative sence and then owneth the specificative But 1. He seeth not it seems the insufficiency of this distinction 2. Nor the meaning of it 3. Nor could well apply it to the subject in hand Of the first I shall speak anon The second appeareth by his Description his Instance and his Application He describeth it to be When there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition 1. And why may it not be added also to the Predicate as well as it may Reduplicatively as Motus est actus mobilis quatenus est mobile 2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not serve for your specificative Quatenus The instance you give is as when we say man as a Reasonable creature faileth This was but an unhappy Translation of Homo quatenus animal est sensibilis and it s true in the Latine how false soever in the English For the Application 1. You say you Believe its thus taken As if you did but Believe and not know your own meaning in the Basis of your Exercitation 2. Your Specificative Quatenus is Causal or signifieth the Reason of the thing either of the Predication or the thing predicate But so cannot your Basis hold good For faith doth not look on Christ as a Saviour as you please Metaphorically to speak because it Justifieth for its Nature is before the effect and therefore cannot the effect be given as the cause of it unless it were the final cause of which anon Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common use signifieth the proper reason of the thing or predication and is appliable only to that which is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to the terms sometimes there is a Reduplication of the same term sometimes that reduplication is of the matter but in other terms as in a definition or synominal words or it is implyed sometimes it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Reduplicate sometimes it is without a Reduplication And then sometimes it giveth a Reason from an Essential Part sometime from the Generical Nature sometime from the Specifick Nature sometime from an Accident and those are divers sometime from a Quality sometime from Quantity sometime from Relation and that is multifarious If we should run into all the sences of this Term which Mr. W. doth lap up in the word Specificative the words might exceed the profit And it s to be noted that usually the term is respective as to some other thing excluded which is contradistinct so we give sometimes a more Remote and General sometime a neerer and more special Reason by Qua or quatenus As if you mix a purging Electuary in your Drink I say that Purgeth quatenus medicated which is to exclude the Drink from being Purgative If I speak of the Electuary I may say that it purgeth quatenus Diagridiate to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative But if I speak of the Diagridium I may say that it Purgeth as having an Elective faculty c. to exclude other Reasons of its operation Now for the opening of the matter in hand let us try certain Propositions that may be supposed to be laid down concerning Faith 1. Faith as faith justifieth This is True taken laxely for the excluding of faith as a meer Physical act or meritorious c. but it is false strictly taken as signifying the formal or nearest reason So 2. Fades in Christum qua talis Justificat that is haec sides in specie is true taken Laxely and materially to exclude all other Faith q. d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul but faith in Christ as such that is the matter deputed to be the condition of Justification But it s false taken strictly deratione formali 3. So This faith as it is an Apprehension or Acceptance of Christ justifieth It s true Materialiter Remotius Laxly but false formaliter stricte de ratione proxima For this is the same in other terms with the second So 4. Faith justifieth as an Instrumental effitient cause of our Justification It s false in every tolerable sence So 5. Faith justifieth as an Instrument of receiving Christ It s true 1. taking the word Instrument Metaphorically and meaning only the Nature of this faith which is to Believe in and Accept Christ 2. and taking Quatenus remotely laxely and materially only q.d. Faith is the Elected matter of the condition or is chosen to be the condition of Justification for this Aptitude as or because it is a Reception or Acceptance of Christ But it s false 1. Taking an Instrument strictly and Logically 2. and speaking de ratione formali So 6. Faith as a believing in Christs sacrifice justifieth It s true Laxly Materialiter partialiter that is This act of faith is part of the matter of the condition But it s false formaliter de ratione proxima So 7. Faith justifieth only as it is a Believing in Christs sacrifice or Righteousness It s false both de materia de ratione formali So 8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in or Accepting Christ as our Ransom Here is darkness and either nonsence or false doctrine 1. As Justifying signifieth either as a justifying efficient cause 2. Or as the merit or matter of our Righteousness 3. Or as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness of which Justification is a consequent and final cause In the first sense it is every way
being the condition For against faith it self being any Condition you may equally argue Its the ungodly that are justified But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification is not to be called ungodly Ergo c. But if you take ungodliness as you do for unadequate holiness to the Law I deny your Minor Can no man but the Perfectly obedient perform the condition of pardon in the Gospel Treat ib. So that this is very considerable that all those whom God justifieth he justifieth them not for any thing they have of their own or any conditions they have performed but as such who are sinners in a strict examination and so deserve condemnation and therefore no works of grace are looked upon Answ I have answered this fully in Colvinus 1. Though Protestants oft say that God saveth men for their obedience and Scripture use the term because oft yet I am willing to yield to you that men be not saved nor justified for any thing of their own or for any conditions But yet he would not justifie them without the performance of some conditions but would condemn them for the non-performance even with a special condemnation distinct from that which is for their sins against the Law 2. Colvinus was the first man and you are the second that ever I read to my remembrance saying that God justifieth men as sinners A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If as sinners then all sinners are justified If not as performers of any Condition then not as Believers These things want proof Treat ib. Lastly that all works are excluded is evident by the Apostles allegation out of David who makes mans blessedness to be in this that God imputeth righteousness without works Answ 1. This is sufficiently answered in the former 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Righteousness comes not only on the Circumcision whence you may see what works he means 3. Your selves expound the foregoing term ungodly of men that have not adequate holiness though sincere therefore you must so take this equipollent term without works for without that adequate holiness but it follows not that therefore it s without any humane act 4. Yet still I grant this also that its without any humane act considered as the matter of a Legal righteousness or as opposite to Christ or co-ordinate with him but not without any humane act as subordinate to Christ and as the matter of that Evangelical righteousness which is required in this Constitution Repent and Believe the Gospel viz. sincerely Treat pag. 223. And indeed it is at last confessed that its faith only that makes the contract between God and the soul that good works are not required to this initial consenting unto Christ so as to make him ours but in the progress This is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words That the first Justification is only by faith but the second by good works Answ How would you have your Reader understand these two insinuations 1. Have I so oft asserted that which you call my Confession and put it into an Index of distinctions least it should be over-lookt and told you as much so long ago in private writings and do you now come out with an Its at last confessed I hope you would not intimate that ever I denyed it or that ever I wrote Book of that subject wherein I did not expresly averre it But then that you think not better of me then I deserve I must tell you that when I still excluded works from our begun Justification it was external Obedience and not Repentance nor those acts of faith even the Receiving Christ as Lord and Teacher which those that oppose me call works 2. If you take it but for an argument to convince such as I that the Papists hold it Ergo c. I must complain that it is uneffectual But if you intend it for another effect on other persons viz. to affright them with the sound of so horrid a name or drive them away by the slink of it then you may possibly attain your ends But you should have attempted it only by truth Is it true that this is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words Yea is it not a notorious truth that it is quite another thing which the Papists affirm in somewhat like words 1. The world knows that the Papists by the first Justification mean the first infusion of renewing special grace 2. And that by the second Justification they mean the adding of further degrees of Sanctification or actuating that which before was given 3. That they hold faith justifieth in the first Justification constitutivè 4. And that works or holiness justifie constitutivè in the second Justification even as Albedo facit album vel doctrina indita facit doctum On the other side I have told you often privately and publikely that 1. By Justification I mean not Sanctification nor any Physical but a Relative change 2. That by first and second I mean not two states or works but the same state and works as begun and as continued 3. That faith justifieth neither constitutivè inhaerenter nor as any cause but as a Receiving Condition 4. And that works of external obedience are but a dispositive condition and an exclusion of that ingratitude that would condemn And now judge on second thoughts whether you here speak the words of Truth or Equity Treat ib. Against this general exclusion of all works is opposed ver 4. where the Apostle saith To him that worketh the Reward is of debt from whence they gather that works only which are debts are excluded Answ I never used or heard such a collection All good works are debts to God but our collection is that works which are supposed by men to make the reward of Debt and not of Grace are excluded Treat But if this be seriously thought on it makes strongly against them for the Apostles Argument is à Genere if it be by works it s of Debt therefore there are not works of Debt and works of no Debt Answ 1. If the Apostle argue à Genere then he argueth not from an Equivocal term and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus 2. And the Apostles Genus cannot be any thing meerly Physical because his subject and discourse is moral and therefore it is not every act that he excludeth 3. Nor can it be every Moral Act that is his Genus but only Works in the notion that he useth the word that is All such Works as Workmen do for hire who expect to receive wages for the worth or desert of their works I shall therefore here confute your assertion and shall prove that All works do not make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and consequently that Paul meaneth not either every Act or every Moral Act here but only works supposed Rewardable for their value What you mean by Works of Debt and Works not of Debt I
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
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
come nearer our use of the word when they expound it by Moderatio Circumscriptio determinatio limitatio In Naturals the word Condition is oft used pro ratione formali per quam alicujus disciplina subjectum adaquatuÌ„ constitui solet As e. g. Physicus considerat corpus cum conditions mobilitatis Geometer considerat quantitatem cum conditions continuitatis Arithmaticus cum conditions disjunctionis Modicus considerat humanuÌ„ corpus cum conditions fâ—iâ— quatenus agretare sanari potest Sometimes also any quality or action which is sine qua non to an effect or event is in meer Naturals called a Condition as the dryness of the wood and the approximation of it to the fire c. are conditions of its burning the non-impedition of a more powerful Agent is a Condition of the efficacious action of every lower cause c. Many other acceptions of the word in Physicks by Zabarel Claudius Alberius and others you may see in Goclenii Lexic Philosoph in nom conditio But we are not in a Physical but a moral discourse and therfore must be understood according to the subject matter It is therfore a Civil or Legal Condition that we have to enquire after and must fetch our descriptions from Lawyers and not from Physicks and therefore it is but deceitful equivocation in some Opponents to fetch their opposition from Physical instances The Lawyers give us divers Definitions of Condition but for the most part they come all to one in sense Some say conditio est Lex adposita hominum actionibus eas suspendens Prat. Conditio say others est modus qui suspendit actum donec co existente confirmetur Vult in Instit de haere instit § 3. n. 6. Accursus faith Conditio est suspensio cujus de futuro effectus vel confirmatio pendet Bart. Conditio est futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditar Cuiacius Conditio est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit These are of conditions de futuro But those that are de praesenti vel de praeterito suspend not the obligation unless as they are yet futurae quoad cognitionem though not quoad esse and so the knowledge of a Right may be suspended They are commonly divided into Casuaeles Potestativas mixtas The moral operation of Conditions as such is not in causing the effect when performed but in suspending the effect till performed The reason of the appointing of them for such suspensions is various sometime it s because the person Giving promising or otherwise constituting the condition is uncertain of the event of the performance and would not have the effect come to pass without it But that 's not alwaies sometime though he might be sure of the event of performance yet if he that is to perform the Condition be uncertain it may make way for this constitution It is therefore a vain Plea of them that say God appointeth no conditions of his Promises because the event is not to him uncertain Saith Mat. Martin in nom Cond Defimri solet Dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto futuro ei opposito Sic sane apud homines quo futura non norunt sed Deus jub certis conditionibus etiam nobiscum agit at omnium eventuum ipse gnaâ—us pro infinita sua sap entia qua praevidet quid occur urum nobis quid nos amplexuri vel declinaturâ— simâ—s Confer Deut. 28 29 30 31. 32. Capitobus Commonly the reason of appointing Conditions is the desireabâ—ness of the thing to be performed conjoyned with some backwardness or possibility of backwardness in the person that is to perform it and therefore he is drawn on by the promise of that which he is more willing to receive But many other reasons there may be The first cause of the Condition is the Requirer whether he be Testator Donor Stipulator Legislator c. And so the Condition of the Law or Covenant of Grace is first Gods condition as the Imposer Secondly And its the condition of each Subject as obliged to perform it Thirdly And the condition of each professing Christian as having Promised the performance Fourthly And the condition of true Christians only as actual Performers of it The condition of the Gospel hath several respects according to the various respects of the Law that doth impose it It s the Condition of a free Gift for the Gospel is a free Gift of Christ and Life It is the Condition of a Promise because much of the Gospel benefits are future It is the Condition of a Testament because Christ dying did leave this to the Church as his last Will and it was confirmed by the death of the Testator It is the Condition of a premiant Law and Act of Grace and oblivion because God made it as Legislator and Rector of the world in order to the conducting of his people to their happines It is the condition of a Minatory Law in that it is a duty commanded on pain of death and for the avoiding of that death Fourthly The preposition by in our present question may signifie either the use and Interest of any Medium in General or else of a true cause constitutive or efficient So much of the terms Proposition 1. Since Adams fall it is impossible for man to be justified by a perfect sinless Obedience of his own except Christ only and consequently impossible for him to be justified by the Law considered in that form and tenor as it was given to Adam for all men are sinners and that Law will ustifie no sinner Proposition 2. By the works of the Mosaical Law no man can be justified And therefore the Jews seek Righteousness where it is not to be found while they think that pardon of sin and acceptance with God are to be obtained by the bare works of that Law while they overlook or reject Christ who is the end of that Law for righteousness to every Believer Specially now that Law is Abrogated or ceased it were a double error to expect Justification by its works Proposition 3. Much less can they be justified by the foresaid Law who in stead of fulfilling it do but falsely imagine that they fulfill it Proposition 4. No man can be justified by works properly meritorious because no man hath any such at all nor may we once imagine that we have any such works as Paul speaks of and the Jews thought they had which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4.4 much less that we are justified by such even Gospel works and faith it self do not justifie on this account and a conceit that they are thus meritorious would but turn them into condemning sins Proposition 5. No act of mans no not faith it self can justifie as an act or work nor as This act in specie that is the nearest and formal reason of its justifying Interest must not be fetcht either from the General or special nature of the
28.13 Act. 3.19 with many more The Consequence is plain in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification and by others confessed a chief part and by all it s confessed to be made ours on the same terms as is Justification it self My fourth Proof is from those texts which make these kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to salvation if they are conditions of salvation then are they no less then conditions of our final Justification But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents and it s proved 1 Tim. 4.8 Heb. 5.9 1 Tim. 6.18 19. Luk. 11.28 and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24 25 26 27. Rev. 22.14 John 12.26 Rom. 8.13 Mat. 5.20 Mat. 19.29 Mat. 6.1 2 4 6. and 5.12 46. and 10.41 42. 2 Thess 1.5 6. Col. 3.23 24. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.7 8. Gal. 6.4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 2. Cor. 9.6 9. John 5.22 27 28 29 c. The Consequence is proved good first In that final Justification and Glorification have the same conditions as is plain both in many Scriptures mentioned and in the nature of the thing for that Justification is the adjudging us to that Glory and therefore so far as any thing is the cause or condition of the Glory it self it must be the reason of the sentence which adjudgeth it to us Secondly And salvation is as free as Justification and no more deserved by man and therefore the Apostle equally excludeth works from both Eph. 2.5 8 9. By Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of worke lest any man should boast so Tit. 3.5 6 7. more fully Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works exclude not sincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation then Justification by grace through faith without works doth not in Scripture sence exclude sincere obedience from being the condition of our final Justification nor Repentance from being the condition of our justification as begun for there is eadem ratio and the Text makes the one as free without works as the other But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures Ergo c. My fifth Proof is from those texts that in terms seem to assign a causality to such obediential acts which can be interpreted of no less then a conditionality such are Luke 19.17 Mat. 25.31 23 34 35 40 46. Gen. 22.16 17 18. 2 Chron. 34.26 27. Psalm 91.9 14. Mark 7.29 1 John 3.22 23. John 16.27 Rev. 3.10 and 3.4 and 7.14 15. c. And though some of these texts speak not of Divine acceptance to life yet first some do secondly and the rest speak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Justification A mans own works are excluded other Means and parts of salvation as well as that I run over these briefly and generally both because I expect that the bare texts without my Comments should work upon the Considerate and because I have been so much upon it formerly in other writings as Confess § 3. p. â—6 cap. 3. cap 5. § 2. pag. 117 118. alibi passim as that I apprehend in this work more tediousness than necessity But the chief thing that I further here intend is to answer some Objections that by a Reverend Brother in his second part of his Treatise of Justification are brought against me But before I come to his Arguments its necessary that I a little animadvert on his Description of Justification that we may first agree upon the sense of our terms or at least know how to understand one another Treat Of Justification p. 126. Justification is a gratious and just Act of God whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety a sinner but repenting and believing is pronounced just and hereby put into a state of Reconciliation and favour with God to the praise of Gods glorious attributes and to the Believers eternal salvation I shall not examine this Description by accurate Logical Rules c. Answ First Doubtless an accurate rather then popular definition would as soon be expected from you as from most and here as anywhere in a Treatise purposely on the Subject Secondly Pronunciation doth not go before Constitution not put us into a state of Reconciliation and favour but find us in it you say your self pag. 120. To justifie is to constitute and to declare or pronounce righteous And in your first Treatise of Justification pag. 7. Indeed the Apostle Rom. 5. saith many are made righteous by the second Adam which if not meant of inherent holiness doth imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not meerly declarative but also constitutive and indeed one is in order before the other for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be Treat p. The Application of Justification is attributed to the Holy Ghost Answ I know not of any such except first where Justification is taken for Sanctification Secondly or as the Holy Ghost is made the Author of the Promise though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith also Treat 16. The Socinians say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally not principally even so faith is said to save but this cannot be because Christ is God as well at Man and therefore cannot be instrumental but principal Answ As they err on one hand that say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally which flows from their blasphemous denyall of his God-head so it s an error on the other hand to say that Christ cannot be Instrumental but principal I prove the contrary first If Christ may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption and ruling of mankind then may he be an Instrument But c. Ergo c. Secondly If Christ may be a means he may be an Instrument but he may be a means for he is called by himself the way to the Father and a way is a means Thirdly He is called the Fathers servant therefore he may be an Instrument Fourthly He is said to come to do his Fathers will therefore he is his Instrument Fifthly All Power is said to be given him even the Power of judging John 5.22 and Matthew 28.18 19. therefore he is the Fathers Instrument in judging And your reason is invalid viz. because Christ is God for he is Man as well as God and so may be Instrumental Treat p. 129 130. It sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears that Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works but that those that are against the Covenant of Grace c. Answ A sin is against the Law of Grace or Gospel first because it is against some object revealed in the Gospel which the sin is against as Christ Thus sin was expiated by Christ 2ly As it is against a Precept of the Gospel and thus it is expiated by Christ 3ly As it is a breach of a mans own Promise or
Covenant made to Christ upon the Gospel invitation And thus it is expiated by Christ 4ly Or as it hath respect to the Gospel commination so as to make a man the object of the actuall curse of this New Covenant or the person to whom its proper penalty is become actually due as every sin made the penalty of the first Law actually due to us This is it that I have said that Christ doth not expiate and none but this Some Divines say the Gospel hath no proper curse or commination penalty I am past doubt that it hath even non-liberation a privation of all the salvation offered them and the Remedilesness of their state c. and I have oft opened this and proved that only final Impenitency and Infidelity or the finall non-performance of the conditions of life are thus peremptorily threatned and make a man the Subject of the proper actual curse of this Law of Grace And if after all explications you will still carry it in confusion or intimate that men hold intolerable Doctrine omitting their explications and by generals making that theirs which they disclaim our next reply shall be patience or if you think indeed either that the Law of Grace doth oblige any under the penalty of remediless non-liberation besides the finally Impenitent and Unbelievers or that Christ dyed to expiate any mans predominant final Impenitency or Unbelief I will not trouble you with any other consutation then a denyal of it Treat p. ibid. Repentance is not an ingredient to our Justification as faith is Repentance qualifieth the Subject but faith immediatly receiveth it Answer The Word Ingredient is more ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of discussing But your assigned difference I ever did allow And yet must we voluminously differ when I have told you that I allow it But then I add that this difference is in the nature of the acts and in their aptitude to their office But in the general nature of being Conditions of pardon which is the nearest reason of their interest they agree though upon several reasons they are made conditions Treat We are not justified by the Habit of faith but by the Act. Answer I said so too in my Aphorisms But the reasons of a learned man Dr. Wallis in his friendly animadversions have perswaded me that it is unsound Treat p. 129. It is asserted that Justification called in Titulo or virtual is nothing but the Grant of it in the Gospel But I see not how that can be called our Justification Answ First That which is asserted is first That the Gospel is the Instrument justifying Secondly That the moral act of the Gospel-Grant and Gods Will by it is Justification in sensu activo Thirdly That the Relation resulting there-from is our passive Justification Secondly Can you see how a Princes pardon under his hand-writing can be the Instrument of a Traitors pardon and how the moral or civil Action of that Instrument and of the Prince by it can be active pardon and how the Relation effected by it can be passive pardon If you can see it there you may see it here And if you cannot many a one can Treat It is the sign or Instrument declaring it not justification it self An. Who ever said and where that passive Justification yea or active is the Gospel it self or the sign The Letter is the sign The actual signification of Gods will thereby is the justifying act The Relation thence resulting on us is our passive Justification These have been oft recited Treat As the grant or promise of our Sanctification is not our Sanctification Answ Good reason The difference is not to you unknown Sanctification passive being a Physical effect must have a Physical cause and therefore a bare moral cause cannot produce it But pardon or justification being but a Relative effect may be produced per nudam resultantiam à fundamento 2. But suppose God had made a promise of Sanctification on condition of faith would not the Right to Sanctification have resulted immediately from this promise the condition being performed And that Right hath the same Relative nature as constitutive Justification and pardon it self hath Treat And as on the contrary our condemnation while we abide in sin or Gods anger against the sinner is not the threatning promulged but that which comes from God himself Answ 1. Our Condemnation per sententiam Judicis is not the thing in question not yet the explication of it but our constitutive condemnation And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law whoever said so but activè it is the action of the Law passivè sumpta it is the Relative effect of the Law 2. From your own Argument reverst I unresistibly make good my Cause against you Condemnation active is the Laws act and condemnation Passive is the Laws immediate effect therefore Justification is alike produced by the Promise or Gift in the Gospel The Antecedent is proved Iohn 3.18 he that believeth on him is not condemned for the Obligation is dissolved but he that believeth not is condemned already Which must be by some Law it being before Judgement and Execution 2 Cor. 3 9. The Law in its delivery is called the ministration of condemnation and that of the Gospel the ministration of righteousness Iam. 2.9 men are said to be convinced of the Law as transgressors Though Paul confute the false conceits of Justification by the Law yet he took them for no unfit phrases to speak of the Law working wrath Rom. 4.15 The curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 And saith Whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 When the Law comes sin reviveth and we die Rom. 7.8 9. therefore we are said to be delivered from the Law Rom. 8.2 Gal. 3.13 Rom. 7.6 And Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given life righteousness should have been by the Law Hence then is mention of being Iustified by the Law Gal. 5.4 and mens being debtors to the Law Gal. 5.3 And somewhat this way is implyed by Nicodemus Iohn 7.51 doth our Law judge any man before c. In a word what more common among Divines then to say the Law curseth or condemneth sinners And then it is not abhorrent from the nature of a Law of Grace an act of Oblivion to absolve and justifie sinners Treat Neither then could we say that we are justified by Christ given to us but by the proposition laid down in the Scripture whereas all say that the objectum quod of our faith is ens incomplexum not the promise of Christ but Christ himself promised Answ It s no impossible thing to be justified both by Christ and by the Promise There is no ground to suppose co-ordinates to be contraries Why may not Christ given us justifie us as the meritorious cause and a principal efficient and his Gospel-grant as his Instrument And accordingly each of them may be the
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
Either you ask this question as of a penitent Believer or the finally impenitent Vnbeliever If of the former I say First All his sins Christs righteousness pardoneth and covereth and consequently all the failings in Gospel duties Secondly But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Christ pardoneth not because he is not guilty of it he hath none such to pardon but hath the personal righteousness of a performer of the conditions of the Gospel And for the finally impenitent Infidels the answer is because they rejected that Righteousness which was able to satisfie and would not return to God by him and so not performing the condition of pardon have neither the pardon of that sin nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them If this Doctrine be the avoiding the good known way there is a good known way besides that which is revealed in the Gospel And if this be so hard a point for you to receive I bless God it is not so to me And if it be far more easie to maintain one single righteousness viz. imputed only it will not prove so safe as easie If one righteousness may serve may not Pilate and Simon Magus be justified if no man be put to prove his part in it and if he be how shall he prove it but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift Treat pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of Justification which it self needeth Justification But good works being imperfect and having much dross cleaving need a Justification to take that guilt away Answ First Again hearken all you that have so long denyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all Here is an Argument to maintain your cause for it makes as much against faith as any other acts which they call works for faith is imperfect also and needs Justification a pardon I suppose you mean I had rather talk of pardoning my sins then justifying them or any imperfections what ever Secondly But indeed it s too gross a shift to help your cause The Major is false and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can see Faith and Repentance are considerable First As sincere Secondly As imperfect They are not the conditions of pardon as imperfect but as sincere God doth not say I will pardon you if you will not perfectly believe but If you will believe Imperfection is sin and God makes not sin a condition of pardon and life I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could seem a sufficiennt reason for this Proposition that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon It s true that in the same respect as it needs a pardon that is as it is a sin it can be no condition But faith as faith Repentance as Repentance is no sin Treat ibid. It s true Justification is properly of persons and of actions indirectly and obliquely Answ The clean contrary is true as of Justification in general and as among men ordinarily The action is first accusasable or justifiable and so the person as the cause of that Action But in our Justification by Christs satisfaction our Actions are not justifiable at all save only that we have performed the condition of the Gift that makes his righteousness ours Treat pag. 233. This question therefore is again and again to be propounded If good works be the condition of our Justification how comes the guilt in them that deserveth condemnation to be done away Is there a further condition required to this condition and so another to that with a processus in infinitum Answ Once may serve turn for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it But if so again and again you shall be answered The Gospel giveth Christ and life upon the same condition to all This condition is first a duty and then a condition As a duty we perform it imperfectly and so sinfully for the perfection of it is a duty but the perfection is not the condition but the sincerity Sincere Repentance and faith is the condition of the pardon of all our sins therefore of their own Imperfections which are sins Will you ask now If faith be imperfect how comes the guilt of that Imperfection to be pardoned is it by a further condition and so in infinitum No it is on tht same condition sincere repentance and faith are the conditions of a pardon for their own Imperfections Is there any difficulty in this or is there any doubt of it Why may not faith be a condition as well as an Instrument of receiving the pardon of its own Imperfection I hope still you perceive that you put these questions to others as well as me and argue against the common Judgement of Protestants who make that which is imperfect to be the condition of pardon Repent and be baptized saith Peter for the remission of sin Of what sin is any excepted to the Penitent Believer certainly no It is of all sins And is not the imperfection of faith and repentance a sin The same we say of sincere obedience as to the continuance of our Justification or the not losing it and as to our final Justification If we sincerely obey God will adjudge us to salvation and so justifie us by his final sentence through the blood of Christ from all the imperfections of that obedience what need therefore of running any further towards an infinitum Treat ibid. The Popish party and the Castellians are so far convinced of this that therefore they say our good works are perfect And Castellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly Answ It seems they are partly Quakers But they are unhappy souls if such an Argument could drive them to such an abominable opinion And yet if this that you affirm be the cause that Papists have taken up the doctrine of perfection I have more hopes of their recovery then I had before nay because they are some of them men of ordinary capacities I take it as if it were done already For the Remedy is most obvious Understand Papists that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience to Christ in Truth and not in Perfection that is the Condition of your final Justification at Judgement and you need not plead for perfection any more But I hardly believe you that this is the cause of their error in this point And you may see that if Protestants had no more Wit then Papists they must all be driven by the violence of your Argument to hold that Faith and Repentance are perfect And seeing you tell us of Castellio's absurdity I would intreat you to tell us why it is that you pray for pardon your selves either you take Prayer to be Means to obtain pardon or you do not If not then 1. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon 2. And then if once it be taken for no means men cannot be blamed if they use it but accordingly But if you
do use it as a means then what means is it Is Prayer any cause of Pardon say so and you say more then we that you condemn and fall under all those censures that per fas aut nefas are cast upon us If it be no cause of pardon Is it a condition sine qua non as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend If you say yea you consequentially recant your disputation or Lecture and turn into the tents of the Opinionists But if it be no condition of pardon then tell us what means it is if you can If you say it is a duty I answer Duty and Means are commonly distinguished and so is necessitas praecepti medii Duty as such is no means to an end but the bare result of a command Though all Duty that God commandeth is also some means yet that is not qua Duty And so far as that Duty is a means it is either a Cause near or remote or a Condition either of the obtainment of the benefit simply or of the more certain or speedy or easie attainment of it or of obtaining some inferiour good that conduceth to the main So that still it is a Cause or a Condition if a means If you say It is an Antecedent I say qua tale that is no means but if a Necessary antecedent that which is the reason of its necessity may make it a means If you go to Physical prerequisites as you talkt of a mans shoulders bearing the head that he may see c. you go extra oleas It s a moral means that we treat of and I think you will not affirm Prayer to be a means of physical necessity to pardon If it were it must be a Physical cause near or remote or a Dispositio materiae of natural necessity c. If you say that prayer for pardon is dispositio subjecti I answer that 's it that we Opinionists do affirm But it is a dispositio moralis and necessary ut medium ad finem and that necessity must be constituted by the Promiser or Donor and that can be only by his modus promissionis which makes it in some measure or other a condition of the thing promised So that there is no lower moral medium then a meer condition sune qua non that my understanding can hitherto find out or apprehend Treat ibid. Paul Judgeth them dung and dross in reference to Justification yea all things c. Answ 1. But what are those All things 2. And what Reference to Justification is it If All things simply in all relation to Justification then he must judge the Gospel dung and dross as to the Instrumental collation of Justification and the Sacraments dung and dross as to the sealing of it and the Ministry dung and dross as to the preaching and offering it and beseeching men to be reconciled to God and Faith to be dung and dross as to the receiving of it as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and dross as conditions of it or Prayer Obedience as conditions of continuing it 2. It s evident in the text that Pauls speaks of All things that stand in opposition to Christ and that stand in competition with him as such and not of any thing that stands in a necessary subordination to him as such 3. He expresly addeth in the text for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord this therefore is none of the all things that are dung for the All things are opposed to this And it containeth that faith which is works with the Opponents for this is more then a recumbency on Christ as Priest It is the Knowledge of him as Lord also I am confident I shall never learn to expound Paul thus I esteem All things even the knowledge of Christ Jesus as Lord and Prophet as dung for the Knowledge of him as Priest Also Paul here excepteth his suffering the loss of that All. I am confident that the All that Paul suffered the loss of comprehended not his Self-denyal Repentance Prayer Charity Hope c. 4. It is not only in reference to Justification that Paul despiseth All things but it is to the winning of Christ who doubtless is the Principle of Sanctification as well as Justification and to be found in him which containeth the sum of his felicity If a man should be such a self-contradicter as to set Repentance or Faith in Christ or Prayer in his Name or Hope in him c. against winning Christ and against being found in him or against the knowledge of him let that man so far esteem his faith hope prayer c. as dung If you should say I account all things dung for the winning of God himself as my felicity Would you have me interpret you thus I account the love of God dung and prayer to him and studious obeying him and the word that revealeth him c. even as they stand subordinate to him This same Paul rejoyced in the testimony of his conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had had his conversation among them and he beat or subdued his body and brought it into subjection lest he should be Reprobated after he was justified and he prayed for pardon of sin and tells Timothy In doing this thou shalt save thy self c. therefore these things thus used were none of the All things that he opposed to the knowledge of Christ as dung Treat pag. 234 235. Others would avoid this Objection by saying that Gospel graces which are the Conditions of the Covenant are reducible to the Law and so Christ in satisfying the Law doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them And they judge it absurb to say that Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the second Covenant or breaches which is said to be only final unbelief Answ As this is brought in by head and shoulders so is it recited lamely without the necessary distinctions and explications adjoyned yea without part of the Sentence it self and therefore unfaithfully Treat But this answer may be called Legion for many errours and coctradictions are in it 1. How can justifying faith qua talis in the act of Justifying and Repentance be reducible duties to the Law taken strictly Indeed as it was in a large sense discovered to the Jews being the Covenant of Grace as I have elsewhere proved Vindic. Legis so it required Justifying Faith and Repentance But take it in the sense as the Abettor of this opinion must do justifying faith and repentance must be called the works of the Law Answ It s easilier called Legion then faithfully reported or solidly confuted 1. Let the Reader observe how much I incurr'd the displeasure of Mr. Blake for denying the Moral Law to be the sufficient or sole Rule of all duty and how much he hath said against me therein and then judge how hard a task it is to please all men when these two neighbours and friends do publikely thus draw
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
to punishment that obligation which is not cannot be taken off nor that man pardoned that was never guilty Your Question occasioneth me to be unmannerly in opening these easie things to you that I doubt not knew them sure twenty years ago and more Though I confess I had not the clear apprehensions of them seven years ago What ever I was then thought by others I confess I was ignorant and am glad that God hath in any measure healed my ignorance though with the loss of my reputation of being Orthodox Where you add that conditions have a moral efficiency either you mean all or some if all or if this whereof we are in speech though I am loth to contest with you in Philosophy yet I must confess I never read so much in any Author nor can force my self to believe it Causa sine qua non est causa fatua It is as Schibler and others a meer Antecedent The word Moral is ambiguous but if you mean it as I conjecture you do for an efficiency interpretative in sense of Law as if the Law would ascribe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition I utterly deny it in the present case or if you mean that our fulfilling the conditions hath an efficiency on God to move him to justifie us as an impulsive procatarctick cause I not only deny it but deny that any such cause is properly with God or hath efficiency on him nor can it have the operation of the final cause which some call moral seeing it is none of Gods end nor can any thing move God but God nor be his end but himself If you mean by moral efficiency any thing else which is indeed no efficiency I stick not on meer words Sir I should not have presumed to expect so much labour from you as to write a sheet for my satisfaction had I not perceived that others expect much more to less purpose and that your letters express that hereafter you intend more If you deny me your answer to this I will trouble you no more And because I would have your labour as short as may be I shall only desire your answer to these few Questions which I ground on both your Letters because the clear resolving of these will be the readiest way to satisfie me Quest 1. Hath the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Glorification any condition on our parts or none If it have Quest 2. What are the Conditions Is not Love and Obedience part of the Condition Quest 3. Must not those Conditions be fulfilled by our selves or hath Christ fulfiâ—led them by himself for any man Quest 4. If we must fulfill him why may not a dying man look on them Or what mâ—â—â— Paul to rejoyce in the testimony of his Conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had his conversation c. And that he had fought a good fight and finished his courâ—â— c. And that in all good conscience c. and Hezekiah Remember Lord that I have walked before thee c. Quest 5. Can a man have any assurance ordinarily that death shall not let him into â—ell who hath no assurance that he hath performed these conditions and how should he have it Can he know that all shall work to him for good though he know not whether he love God or that there is no condemnation to him though he know not that he is in Christ and walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Quest 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to salvation but as meer figures then is not the Antinomian Doctrine true that we may not Act for Salvation Q. 7. What do you mean your self when you write against those that deny Repentance to be a Condition to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness but a sign Lect. 20. of Justification And when you say that Scripture limits Justification and Pardon only to those Subjects that are so and so qualified p. 171. where you instance in Repentance Confession Turning Forgiving others c. and make faith an Instrumental cause but say there are many qualifications in the Subject p. 172. And what mean you when you say p. 210. In some gross sins there are many conditions requisite besides humiliation without which Pardon of sin cannot be obtained where you instance in Restitution Besides those p. 148 149 150. Is it not safe when a man hath prerformed these conditions to look on them either living or dying Or what do you say less then I do here I know you are none of the men of contention and therefore will not recant your own Doctrine in opposition to me And if you did not mean that these are conditions of Pardon and Justification when you say they are who can understand you If those gross sins be in the unjustified you will not say that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Justification I know that you give more to faith and so to man then I do viz. to be the Instrument of his own Justification which I will not contend against with any that by an improper sense of the word Instrument do differ only in a term but what do you give less to Repentance and the rest then I do you say they are conditions and I say no more Qu. 8. And what do the generality of our Divines mean when they say that Faith and new Obedience are our conditions of the Covenant As I have cited out of Paereus Scharpius Willet Piscator Junius Aretius Alstedius who saith the condition of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith and partly Evangelical Obedience or Holiness of life proceeding from faith in Christ Distinct Chap. 17. p. 73. And Wendeliâ— the like c. If it be said that they mean they are conditions of Salvation but not of Justification Then Quest 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Justification at Judgement which you have truly shewed is more compleat then this Justificatio viae and our Glorification have different conditions on our part and so of our persevering Justification here Quest 10. And whether it be any less disparagement to Christ to have mans works to be the conditions of his Salvation then to be the bare conditions of his ultimate and continued Justification Seeing Christ is a Saviour as properly as a Justifier and Salvation comprizeth all Quest 11. What tolearable sense can be given of that multitude of plain Scriptures which I have cited Thes 60. For my part when I have oft studyed how to forsake my present Judgement the bare reading of the 25 of Matthew hath still utterly silenced me if there were no more Much more when the whole Gospel runs in the like strain Quest 12. Is not the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righteous that is not guilty of non-fulfilling or not obliged to punishment or guilty as from that same Law or Covenant And doth
if God wil shew me so much Mercy as to enable this restless uncessantly-pained Sceleton to such a work I shall be bold to send you word and claim the favour you offer In the mean time it is my duty to let you know I have received your Letter and to return your hearty thanks for it though it be not that which I hoped for and shall now cease to expect I am convinced now as well as you that Letters are but a loss of time but your Arguments or direct answers to my Questions would have been for my advantage a precious improvement of it but seeing I may not be so happy I must rest content It still seemeth to my weak understanding to be no impertinency to prove that your self affirm Repentance Confession Turning Forgiveing others c to be more then signs i. e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness and to tell you that I say no more and to tell you still that you give more to faith and so to man then I but I give no more to works for ought I descern then you I am sure then our ordinary Divines do And if I do mistake herein you have little reason to suspect me of willfulness though of weakness as much as you please As for the state of the Question between us which you speak of I am a stranger to it and know not what you mean I never came to the stating of a Question with you nor did you state any to me in your letters but mentioned your vehement dissent from several passages in my book and therefore I had reason to think that you fell upon the Questions as there they were stated so that it is intime medullitùs pertinent to my question which is impertinent to yours You say the question is Whether the Gospel righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing and tell me that I say by believing and obedience when I never stated such a question nor ever gave such an answer I suppose by Gospel Righteousness you mean Christs Righteousness given to Believers Now I have affirmed that those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do believe and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically righteous But your phrase made ours doth intimate that our first possession of Christs Righteousness should be upon Obedience as well as Faith which I never affirmed But Christs Righteousness is continued ours on condition of obeying him though not made ours so and we shall be justified at Judgement also on that condition As it is not marriage duty but Contract which is the condition of a womans first Interest in her Husband and his riches but marriage duty and the performance of that Covenant is the condition of her Interest as continued And indeed it is much of my care in that Book to shun and avoid that question which you say is stated between us for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word By which I was loth to play with I know we are justified By God the Father By Christs satisfaction By Christs absolution By the Gospel Covenant or Promise By the Sacraments By Faith By Works for I will never be ashamed to speak the words of the Holy Ghost By our words for so saith Christ Therefore if you will needs maintain in general that Christs Righteousness is made ours no otherwise then by beleiving nor otherwise continued ours you see how much you must exclude But to remove such Ambiguity I distinguish between justifying By as an efficient instrumental Cause and By as by a condition and I still affirm that Works or Obedience do never justifie as any cause much less such a cause but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Justifier we are finally justified And truly Sir it is past my reach at present to understand what you say less in this then I except you differ only about the word By and not the sence and think that it is improper to say that Pardon or Justification is By that which is but a condition You seem here to drive all at this and yet me thinks you should not 1. Because you affirm your self that conditions have a moral efficiency and then it seems when you say Repentance Confession c. are conditions you mean they are morally efficient which is a giving more to works then ever I did 2. Because you know it is the phrase of Christ and his Spirit that we are justified By our words and works and it is safe speaking in Scripture phrase 3. Because you say after that my Assertions are destructive of what Divines deliver but the word By if we are agreed in the sence cannot be destructive and except the phrase only By c. be the difference where is it When you say Repentance c. are conditions and I say they are no more and I have nothing from you of any disagreement about the sence of the word condition Lest you should doubt of my meaning in that I understand it as in our usual speech it is taken and as Lawyers and Divines generally do viz. Est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur quoad ex post facto confirmetur ut Cujacius And whereas Conditions are usually distinguisht into potestativas causales mixtas seu communes I mean conditiones potestativas Where you add that you say only faith is the condition justifying c. but I make a justifying Repentance c. And whereas heretofore we had only justifying faith now c. I answer 1. If by justifying Repentance c. you mean that which is as you say Faith is an instrument or efficient Cause I never dreamed of any such If as a Condition you confess it your self 2. If you speak against the sence we are agreed in that for ought I know If against the phrase then justifying Faith or Repentance is no Scripture phrase but to be justified By faith and By works and By words are all Scripture phrases You say you firmly hold that Repentance and other Exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and media ordinat◠in the use whereof only Pardon can be had but what is this to me c. I answer 1. Add conditions as you do in your Book and you say as much as I. 2. If by the other exercises of Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated or the like and if by Pardon you mean even the first pardon as the word Only shews you do then you go quite beyond me and give far more to those exercises of grace then I dare do For I say that Christ and all his imputed Righteousness is made ours and we pardoned and justified at first without any works or obedience more then bare faith and what is precedent in its place or concomitant and
then some other and but propter aliud quasi conditio conditionis and if you say so of Repentance c. we should not disagree You say In other things I come off and so mollifie my assertions that you need not contend Answ 1. I would you had told me wherein I so come off For I know not of a word If you mean in that I now say obedience is no condition of our first attaining justification but only of the continuance of it c. I said the same over and over in my book and lest it should be over-lookt I put it in the Index of distinctions If you mean not this I know not what you mean 2. But if explication of my self will so mollifie and prevent contending I shall be glad to explain my self yet further Yea and heartily to recant where I see my error For that which you desire I demonstrate that its By love and Through love c. I have answered before by distinguishing of the sense of By and Through and in my sense I have brought you forty plain Texts in my book for proof of it which shew it is no new Doctrine To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you say that Abrahams justification is the pattern of all others I conceive that an uncouth speech strange to Scripture for phrase and proper sense though in a large sense tolerable and true Certain I am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we are justified by faith without the works of the Law but as certain that our faith must differ from Abrahams even in the essentials of it We must believe that this Jesus is he or we shall dye in our sins which Abraham was not required to believe Our faith is an explicite Assent and Consent to the Mediators Offices viz. that he be our Lord and Saviour and a Covenanting with him and giving up our selves to him accordingly But whether Abrahams and all recited in Heb. 11. were such is questionable Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern seems to be it that occasioned Grotius to give that wretched definition of faith Annot. in loc that it is but a high estimation of Gods power and wisdom and faithfulness in keeping his promises c. yet I know he came short also of describing that faith which he lookt on as the pattern My first answer was that I exclude also any effective co-operation to which you say Why do we strive about words c. I see that mens conceivings are so various that there is no hopes that we should be in all things of one mind Because I was loth to strive about words therefore I distinguished between causality and conditionality knowing that the word By was ambiguous when we are said to be justified By faith c. now you take this distinguishing to be striving about words to avoid which you would bring we back to the ambiguous term again Whereas I cannot but be most confident that as guile is most in Generals so there would be nothing else between us but striving about words if we dispute on an unexplained term and without distinction Do you indeed think that to be an efficient cause of our justification and to be a bare condition is all one or do you think the difference to be of no moment You say I do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Answ 1. You should have said Let the sense or way of justifying be what it will for sure the difference between an efficient cause and a condition is more then in the expression or else I have been long mistaken 2. I do not exclude God justifying Christ justifying the Word justifying c. and yet to distinguish between the way that these justifie in and the way in which faith justifies I take to be no striving about words but of as high concernment as my salvation is worth 3. Either you mislike my phrase or my sense if the phrase then you mislike the word of God which saith a man is justified by works and not by faith only If the sense then you should not fall upon the phrase and then to distinguish and explain is not to strive about words 4. If I do bring faith and obedience neerer in justification then others it is not by giving more to works then others but by giving less to faith And if in that I err you should have fallen on that and shewed it and not speak still as if I gave more to works then you I am sure I give less to man and therefore no less than you to Christ I perceive not the least disadvantage herein that I lye open to but only the odium of the phrase of justification by works with men that are carried by prejudice and custome 5. I will not quarrel about such a word but I like not your phrase of Faith justifying and works justifying for it is fitter to introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them then to say We are justified by faith and by works which are only the Scripture phrase and signifie but a conditionality To that you say out of Phil. 3.9 I believe Paul doth most appositely oppose the righteousness which is by faith to that which is by the Law But then 1. He means not By faith as an instrument of justification 2. Nor by faith which is but a meer affiance on Christ for justification or only as such 3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge Repentance Obedience c. 4. But to say that righteousness or justification is by love or by obedience c. Without adding any more is not a convenient speech as it is to say that righteousness is by faith 1. Because the speech seems to be of the first receiving of righteousness wherein obedience or works have no hand 2. Because faith having most clear direct relation to Christ doth most plainly point out our righteousness to be in him 3. Because faith as it is taken in the Gospel is a most comprehensive grace containing many acts and implying or including many others which relate to Christ as the object also Even obedience to Christ is implyed as a necessary subsequent part of the condition seeing faith is an accepting of Christ as Lord and King and Head and Husband as well as a justifier 5. Yet Scripture saith as well as I that Christ shall justifie us By his knowledge and we shall be justified by our words and by works and me thinks it should be no sin to speak the words of God except it be shewed that I misunderstand them It is not so fit a phrase to say that a poor ignoble woman was made rich and honorable by her Love or Obedience or Marriage faithfulness and conjugal actions as to say it was by marriage with such a Noble man or consent to take him to be her husband For the marriage consent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affection action and faithfulness Yet are these last
answer 1. Righteousness is but a relation And therefore a thing which is naturally uncapable of being of it self physically apprehended This is past doubt 2. If it be physically received then either as a principle and quality or as an object Not the former For so we receive our first and after grace in sanctification but none ever said so in justification Nor indeed can that righteousness which is formally but a relation dwel in us as a principle or quality If we receive it as an object then by an Act Or if the soul were granted to be passive in reception of an object I have shewed that 1. It is but in apprehensione simplici None pleadeth for more But faith is not such 2. And so it would receive Christ no otherways then it receiveth any object whatsoever it thus apprehendeth 3. And this is not to receive Christ or his righteousness but the meer species of it according to your own Philosophers and if righteousness be but a relation and a relation as Durandus Dr. Twiss and many another thin be but Ens Rationis then the species of an Ens Rationis is a very curious Web Knowledge as D'Orbellis saith in 2. sent Dis 3. q. 3. is twofold i. e. sensitive and intellective and each of these twofold Intuitive and Abstractive Intuitive knowledge is indeed de objecto ut in se praesens quando scilicet res in propria existentia est per se motiva Exemplum de sensitiva est ut visus videt colorem yet this is but Recepiendo speciem non rem and this is not it in question Exemplum de intellectiva est ut visio Divinae essentiae à beatis This is utterly denyed to be at all by Doctor Stoughton Camer and other solid Divines against the School-mens judgement And if it be yet doubtless as we know not how so it is not such as faiths apprehension which we enquire after Cognitio Abstractiva est quando species rei movet ad cognoscendum rem ipsam hoc siveres sit in se praesens sive absens sive existat sive non Exemplum in sensitiva est ut phantasia imaginatur colorem Exemplum in intellectiva est ut intellectus cognoscit quidditatem coloris medicante ejus specie So that if it be either of these it were at the utmost but a passive reaception of the species and not of Christ or his righteousness 2. By what physical contact faith doth receive this might be enquired and 3. By what physical act of the Agent to neither of which questions can I imagine what tolerable answer can be given in defence of this cause 2. And if faith be a passive physical instrument it must have a Physical Efficiency and what is that to justifie why even God himself in this life doth that but by a Moral Act by his word and not by a physical as to particulars 3. But that which driveth me to the greatest admiration is How faith should Efficere patiendo If I should rip up this or require a demonstration of it in respect to the justification at judgement yea or in this life yea or of any effect I should lay such an odium on it from its absurdities that in dealing with you modesty doth forbid me to insist on it 4. The fourth requisite will be enquired after in the next Question save one The fourth Question is Whether other Graces may not be as properly called physical passive Instruments as Faith is your sense And I doubt not but they may though its true of neither For 1. If there be no physical reception of Christs righteousness imaginable but that which is per modum objecti and if other gratious acts have Christs righteousness for their object as well as that which you call faith then other Acts do receive Christs righteousness as well as saith but both branches of the Antecedent are true therefore the consequence the bare knowledge or simple apprehension of Christs righteousness per modum objecti may better pretend to this then recombency or affiance Yea and love it self more fitly then affiance may be said to receive or embrace its object which is not therefore false neither because Bellarmine hath it and you know he brings Austines plain words affirming love to be the hand by which they received him c. I confess if I first renounce not the concurrent Judgement of Philosophers I cannot approve of the common Answer which our Divines give to Bellarmine in this viz. That Faith receiveth Christs Righteousness first to make it ours but Love only to retain it and embrace and enjoy it when first we know it to be ours For though this say as much as I need to plead for acknowledging Love to be as properly a physical Reception for retention as Faith is for first Possession yet if affiance be taken in any proper ordinary sence it cannot thus hold good neither for so Affiance must signifie some act of the will in order of nature after love or at least not before it I acknowledge that so much of Faith as lyeth in the understanding is before Love in order of nature sicut ipse intellectus est simpliciter prior voluntate ut motivum mobili activum passivo ut Aquin. 1. q. § 2. a. 3.2 and 12. q. 13. a. 1. C. For as he Intellectus est primum motivum omnium potentiarium animae quoad determinationem actus voluntas verò quoad exercitium actus Aquin 12. q. 17. a. 1. C. But for the acts of the will toward Christ I could give you but to avoid tediousness I must forbear at large the Testimony of Aquinas Tolet Gerson Camero Amesius Zanchius Rob. Baronius Bradwardine Ravio Viguerius c. That Love is not only the first of all the Passions but even the first motion of the Will towards its Object and little or not at all different from Volition diligere being but intensive velle I have much more to say to this which here I must pretermit But still I speak not of Love as a Passion but a true closure as it were of the will with its Object as Good and expect love to be proper to the sensitive and strange to the intellective soul we must make it the same with Velle For Amor gaâ—dium in quantum significant Actus appetitus sensitivi passiones sunt non autem secundum quod significant Actus appetitus intellectivi inquit Aquinas 1. q. 2. a. 1.1 The fifth Question is Whether Faith be any Instrument of our Justification Answer Scotus gives many sences of the word Instrument and so doth Aquinas Schibler and most Philosophers that meddle with it and they give some so large as contain all causes in the world under God the first cause In so large a sence if any will call faith an Instrument of Justification I will not contend with him though yet I will not say so my self as judging faith to be no kind of cause of it at
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
neither and yet say it is harsh But the reason you intimate because Bellarmine hath some such phrase which I never remembred or observed in him and little do I care whether he have or no If the Papists be nearer to us then I take them to be it is cause of joy and not sorrow But sure I am that Protestant Writers generally use the word Condition and Wendeline saith The Papists abuse us in feigning us to say the Gospel is absolute and saith the Gospel in each sence is conditional In one sence Faith is the Condition in another Faith and Obedience c. But here you come again to the Labyrinth and transcendent Mysterie of passive Faith nay you enlarge the Mysterie yet more 1. You say again Faith doth pati 2. And yet Love doth agere 3. Else you would yield that Bellarmine argues consonantly enough that Love would justifie as well as Faith 4. Yet you acknowledge Faith an Active Grace but only in this Act its meerrecipient Answer I confess my reason utterly at a loss in this but yet if it were in my Bible to me Intelligible I would believe it as I do the Doctrine of the Trinity and cease enquiring But I cannot so do by any Creature to make him the Lord of my faith and Reason 1. Whether Faith doth Pati I have enquired already 2. That Love doth Agere I verily believe and yet I have ofter heard Love called a Passion then Faith And as Keckeram saith the Affections are more Passive then the immanent Elicit Acts of the Intellect and Will And though as it is in the Rational soul Love saith Aquin. is no Passion but a Willing which causeth me to judge it so near Kin to Faith yet as it is in the sensitive it is a Passion So that I am quite beyond doubt that physically love is more properly called a Passion then Faith 3. Therefore for ought I know it is no wonder if Bellarmine bear the Bell and Papists be unconvinced if you have no better Arguments then this especially if no body else had better 4. But yet the Mysterie is far more unsearchable to me that faith should be Active in all other save only this Act. What is this thing called Faith which you make such a Proteus to be Active and Passive as to several Objects Yea when it is acknowledged the same Faith which receiveth Christ and Righteousness and the several promises and resteth on Christ for the Pardon of each sin for hearing each Prayer for Assurance Peace Comfort Deliverance from temptations and dangers and sin and is thus usefull through all our lives for the fetching of help from Christ in every streight yet that this same Faith should be Active in all the Rest and Passive only in One justifying Act. Oh For the face of an Argument to prove this Sure its natural Reception of one Object and another is in point of Passiveness alike and its assigned Conditionality in Scripture is of like nature as to each branch of the good on that condition promised 5. And here also I perceive by your speech you make it consist in some single act And yet you never tell what that is and how then can it be in several faculties as Davenant Amesius Joh. Crocius Melancth with most do affirm 6. But yet the depth of the mysterie to me lies in understanding and reconciling your words Only in this Act its meerly Recipient Is this an Act too and yet meerly Recipient which you make a meer Pasâ—ive reception A meerly Passive Act is such a contradiction in adjecto to my understanding that I cannot welcome the notion thither yea if you had said less that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Passive I never knew that an Act could Pati yet am I more conscious of mine own insufficiency then to contend with one of your knowledge in matter of Philosophy but I must needs say that your notions are yet so far beyond my reach that possibly I might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I so highly value yet am I not able to apprehend the sence The Joy in Heaven which you mention for a wandring sheep I think is meant of the first or some eminent recovery to Christ and not of every Philosophical notion sure Sir if salvation hang on this Doctrine as thus by you explained I am out of hope that either I or ever a one in all this countrey should ever come to heaven except by believing as that part of the Church believes which is of your opinion When I am yet apt to think that siding with any party in such opinions will not conduce to any mans salvation For I am of Bergius his mind that as it is not the Jew the Pagan or the Mahometan or any Infidel privative that shall be saved but the Christian so it is not the Papist the Lutheran the Calvinist the Arminian that shall be saved qua talis but the Catholick However I am in strong hopes that a man may be saved though he cannot understand how an Act can be a passive instrument nor do I think that my subscribing to that notion would make any great rejoycing in Heaven I am sorry you had not leisure to answer the Questions which were very pertinent to the business of my satisfaction though not to your business That my explication of that plain weighty necessary point how imperfect graces or duties can yet be the conditions of the New Covenant should seem a Paradox to you I say to you makes me yet more possest with admiration When you know that such conditions there are suppose it were but faith alone and you know your self that this faith is imperfect But I perceive we know but in part and therefore must differ in part He shall see whom God will enlighten I had far rather you had fallen upon that point then on the term of Justification by works If you would but grant me that Justifying faith as such is an Accepting of Christ for King and Prophet as well as for a Justifier and consequently that it is a resigning our selves to be ruled by him as well as to be saved by him I shall then be content for peace sake to lay by the phrase of Justification by workâ— though it be Gods own phrase if the Church were offended with it and required this at my hands So they will be satisfied with my silencing it without a renouncing it I have written thus largely that I might not be obscure and to let you see that though I have scarce time to eate or sleeep yet I have time and paper for this work and that I make not light of your dissent The Love and Respect which you mention to me I do as little doubt of as I do whether I have a heart in my breast and your desires of my reducing I know do proceed from your zeal and sincere affections That which I take worst is that you should
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
justified in co-ordination with Christs merits by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can so justifie him and by repenting of those sins that have condemned him and by desiring loving hoping in Christ alone for his Justification or by Thankfulness to God for justifying him by the sole merits of Christ And is it not a strange Exposition that feigneth Paul to mean and exclude such acts as these under the name of works But yet really if such a man be to be found that doth think to merit Justification by denying such merit I am against him as well as you His third Argument is If faith justifie only as the beginning of our Justification then there are degrees of Justification but there are no degrees Ergo. Answer 1. Faith is neither the Beginning nor End of Justification but a means of it 2. If you would insinuate that I deny faith to be the means of our continued as well as begun Justification you deal deceitfully 3. I deny your Consequence It may prove more necessary to the Continuance of our Justification then to its beginning and yet prove no degrees 4. But how Justification hath or hath not Degrees I have told you before and fuller in other writings His fourth Argument is Because good works do not precede but follow Justification Answer 1. Repentance and the Love of God in Christ and faith in Christ as Lord and Head and Teacher do go before the pardon of sin and so before Justification 2. External obedience goeth before Justification at Judgement and Justification as continued here Did you doubt of these His fifth Argument is that These two Justifications overthrow each other If by one we have peace with God what need the other How can good works perfect our Justification being themselves imperfect Answer All this is answered in the second Disputation 1. It s no contradiction to be justified by God by Christ by Faith by Words by Works if God be to be believed that affirmeth all 2. As imperfect faith may be the condition of pardon so may imperfect Repentance and imperfect Obedience of our sentential Absolution Pag. 233. He answereth the Objection Blessedness is ascribed to other Graces thus Not as if Happiness were in them per se but only as they are signs Answer Promising is more then Ascrbing It s a great advantage for you to have the forming of your Objections 2. Happiness per se is as much in Love as in Faith and more 3. Other Graces are media means which is more then only works Pag. 241. He proves that works justifie not subordinate to Faith thus Argument 1. No good works were found till faith had done its Works Answer 1. Faith hath not done its work till death we are not justified only by the first act of faith but by after-acts to the Death 2. Faith in Christ as Head and Lord and Teacher and Desire and Repentance were found before Faith had justified us 3. Obedience is found before the sentential Justification or the continuation of our first received Righteousness His second Argument is Because good works are the effects of Faith and Justification and therefore cannot be the cause Answer 1. They are none of the cause at all It s not well to intimate that we hold them the cause as in despight of all our own denyals 2. They are not so much as Means or Antecedents of that part of Justification of which they are the effect The act of faith which you will exercise before your death is as true a condition or Instrument if you will needs call it so of your Justification as continued as your first act of faith was of your Justification as begun And yet that act of faith is but fruit of your first Justification as well as Obedience is His third Argument is that If Gospel Obedience and good works do subordinately act with faith to the effecting of Justification then the Justification which proceedeth from both must be of a different kind and nature Answer 1. Neither faith nor work effect Justification 2. Justification by Promise and Gift and Justification by Sentence Plea c. are much different 3. But your consequence is nothing worth For these are not causes but conditions And if they were yet different causes may concur to the same effect which never man before you denyed that I know of Our case is as if to a Rebell that hath forfeited Life and Estate the King upon a Ransom grant him both on condition that he thankfully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ransom and to hold them on condition that he often do his Homage to the King and return not to Rebellion Doth the first acceptance here serve turn for continuance of what is first received without the following Homage and Fidelity or do the different parts of the condition make such a difference in the benefit as you here take the Monstrous Justification to be as you rashly call it Another Argument is If faith be a total cause or condition of producing the effect of Justification then there 's no want of obedience for its assistance Answer 1. Faith or obedience are no causes of pardon 2. I will not trouble the Reader to open the shame of that Philosophy which you make such ostentation of Only I would remember you that causes total in suo genere may have others under them And that it followeth not that the sun shineth not or the fire heateth not or that you understand not and wrote not these words though I suppose you will say that God is Causa totalis of all these act nor yet that God doth use his creatures because of an insufficiency in himself 3. Faith taken for our becoming Believers Disciples Christians is the total condition of our first Receiving Justification 2. Faith taken more narrowly for our accepting Christs Righteousness is not the total Condition of our first Receiving of Justification 3. Obedience is part of the condition of the continuance of it and of our sentential Justification And whereas you talk over and over of Total causes and particular causes I tell you again they are no causes He adds that then Obedience doth nihil agere or actum agere Answer It doth nihil efficere But besides nihil and factum there 's two things oft mentioned Justification at Judgement and the non-amission of it here 3. He insipidly gain disputes that If an effect doth totally proceed from any cause then it totally depends on it And what then Therefore it solely dependeth on it And if these things were true what are they to our question But saith he When good works the fruit of faith are interrupted yet our Justification abides by the single influence of faith only as a total cause of its being and conservation Answer 1. Alas What would such Disputants do with the Church if Gods mercy did not hinder them By your own Argument now neither God nor Christ nor the Gospel are any
of Grace Here there is no room to distinguish of their Acceptance as if the acceptance of pardon were the condition of pardon and the acceptance of riches were the condition of their Riches c. But it is the same acceptance of their Prince and his Act of Grace that hath relation to the several consequent benefits may be called pardoning honouring enriching in several respects It is the same marriage of a Prince that makes a woman rich honourable c. So it is the same faith in whole Christ as Christ that is sanctifying and justifying as it relateth to the several Benefits that is it is the condition of both so that their quâ justifiâ—ans doth either intimate this untruth that haec fides quae talis id est qua fides in Christum crucifixum justificat which is true neither of one act nor other and so begs the Question or else it saith nothing So that I shall never admit this quae justificans without an Exposition and better then yet I have seen from any that use it Mr. W. Argument 4. That which is the sum and substance of Evangelical preaching is the object of Justifying Faith But Christ as crucified is the substance of Evangelical preaching Ergo. Answ 1. When I come to look for the conclusion which excluded Christ as Lord Teacher c. from being the object I can find no such thing in any Argument that yet I see They have the same fate as Mr. Blakes Arguments had to conclude no more then what I grant that is that Christ as crucified is the object of justifying faith But where 's the Only or any exclusive of the rest 2. But if it be implyed then 1. I say of the term crucified that Christ crucified to purchase sanctification and salvation is the object of that faith which is the condition of Justification and not only Christ crucified to procure Justification 2. I deny the Minor if by sum and substance you exclude Christ as Lord Teacher Judge Head c. Surely Evangelical preaching containeth Christs Resurrection Lord-ship Intercession c. as well as his death or else the Apostles preached not the Gospel This needs no proof with them that have read the Bible Mr. W. Argum. 5. That which we should desire to know above all things is that Object of justifying faith But that is Christ crucified Ergo. Answ 1. Still the Question wanting in the conclusion Who denyeth that Christ crucified is the object of justifying faith 2. But if only be here understood really doth not this Brother desire to know Christ obeying Christ risen Christ teaching ruling interceding c I do Mr. W. Argument 6. That in Christ is the object of faith as justifying which being apprehended doth justifie us But the death suffering blood obedience of Christ to death is that Therefore it is the proper object of faith as justifying Answ 1. I distinguish of the term as justifying and answer as before No act of Faith effecteth our Justification and whole faith is the condition The being or Nature of no act is the formal or nearest reason of faiths Interest in Justification It justifieth not as this act nor as that 2. If only or some exclusive be not implyed in the conclusion I grant it still But if it be then both Major and Minor are false 1. The Major is false for it is not only the matter of our Justification that is the object of justifying faith To affirm this is but to beg the question we expect your proof 2. The Minor is false for besides the sufferings mentioned the very person of Christ and the active obedience of Christ and the Title to pardon given us in the Gospel c. apprehended by faith do justifie But the question is not what justifieth ex parts Christi but ex parte nostri Mr. W. Argument 7. That which the Gospel doth first present us with is the Object of faith as justifying But Christ is in the Gospel first presented as a Saviour therefore he is therein the object of faith as justifying Answ 1. Distinguishing as before of the as justifying I still grant the whole the exclusive and so the question is still wanting in the conclusion 2. But if he mean only then both Maior and Minor are false The Maior is false for that which the Gospel doth first present us with is but part of the object of justifying Faith For it presenteth us with the Articles to which we must Assent and to the Good which we must Accept by degrees and not all in a sentence or word The Minor is false because in order of nature the Description of Christs Person goeth first and of his Office afterward 3. The word Saviour comprehendeth both his Prophetical and Kingly Office by which he saveth us from sin and Hell as also his Resurrection Ascention Intercession c. And in this large sense I easily grant the Conclusion 4. If by a Saviour he mean only as his cause importeth a sacrifice for sin then as this is a strangely limited sense of the word Saviour so certainly the Incarnation Baptism Temptation Miracles Obedience of Christ are all exprest before this And if it were otherwise yet the consequence of the Maior is utterly groundless and vain Priority or Posteriority of any point delivered in the Gospel is a poor Argument to prove it the Object much less it alone of justifying faith Mr. W. Argument 8. That which the Lords Supper doth as a seal present to justifying faith that is the object of faith as justifying But the Lords Supper doth present us with Christ as dying Ego Answ 1. Still the question is wanting in the conclusion What a pack of Arguments are here 2. Do you believe in your conscience that Christ is presented and represented in the Supper only as dying Mr. W. Argument 9. If we have Redemption and remission of sins through faith in his blood then faith as justifying should only look upon that But we have redemption and remission of sins by his blood Col. 1. Answ Here 's one Argument that hath the question in the conclusion But 1. I deny the consequence of the Major as not by Christians to be endured The only followeth not Though we must be justified by his blood I have proved before that we are also justified by his Resurrection Obedience Intercession Judgement c. 2. Moreover the consequence is false on another account Justifying faith that is Faith the condition of Justification must look at more in Christ then that which purchaseth Redemption It justifieth not efficiently nor of its own nature but the Promise justifieth without faiths co-efficiency only it makes the condition sine qua non and this it may do by another Act of faith as well as that which apprehendeth the Ransom 3. The qua justificans I have spoke to Qua cannot here properly refer to the nature of the faith but to the Benefit And so faith qua justificans is
false In the second sense it is every way false speaking of our Universal Righteousness In the third sense if spoken laxely de materia its false because of the exclusive Only And if spoken de ratione formalivel proxima 1. It s preposterous to put the Consequent before the Antecedent if you speak de ordine exequendi 2. And it is false For qua Justificans speaketh of Justification as the consequent or as an act and not of the Nature of Faith it self And therefore qua Justificans faith is nothing much less that act alone For it is not de esse fidei that the term speaks but of the consequent So that the Fides qua justificans est what ever act you mention is absurd and unsound For as non justificat quatenus est it a non est quatenus Justificat its Essence being pre-supposed But if you speak de ordine Intentionis viz. Faith as elected a means or condition of Justification is only a Believing in Christs sacrifice then Laxely Materially it would be True if it were not for the only But because of that it is false both de materia de ratione formali The nature of it is before its Office So 9. Faith as designed to this act or operation of Justifying looks on Christ as a Saviour This is Mr. Ws. Assertion But 1. justifying is not an act or operation of faith but of God on the Believer 2. But if you mean but constituting it the condition of Justification then 1. the wrong end is set first For it doth not look at Christ as it s made the condition but it s made the condition because being an Accepting of Christ its Apt for that Office So that Materially and Laxely it s thus true a Saviour comprehendeth Christs Kingly and Prophetical Offices and everlasting Priesthood in Heaven But this is nothing to the formal Reason of its Interest in Justification But lest you think that qua Justificans hath no proper place I further instance 9. Faith as justifying is distinst from faith as entitling to Heaven or other promised mercies This is true supposing Justification and the said Title to Glory to differ But this is but a denomination of the same faith from its divers consequents As my lighting a candle being one action is Actioilluminans ut causa moralis calefaciens quailluminans non est calefaciens So a womans marrying a Prince is an Honouring enriching act and qua honouring it is not enriching But it s the same entire undivided act or Antecedent Means or Condition that is thus variously denominated from several Benefits And thus Relations may give divers denominations to the same person the same man may be considered as a Father as a Physitian as a Subject c. So 10. FAITH WHICH IS AN EFFECTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF and AFFIANCE IN CHRIST AS CHRIST was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the Condition of Justification and Life because his Wisdom saw it fit for that Office and that fitness lyeth in its respect to the Object and Gods ends supposing we may assign Reasons or causes of Gods Will. By this faith so constituted the Condition we are actually JUSTIFIED AS T IS THE PERFORMED CONDITION OF GODS PROMISE This is the plain Truth in few and easie words By what is said you may see that when they say faith as Justifying is this or that it is both preposterous and the qua as distinct from the quae de ratione formali causally spoken is plainly false But in other cases Laxely and Materially the qua signifieth the same as the quae with the exclusion of other matter And when they have raised never so great a dust the Question is but this Whether we are justified by Believing in Christ as Christ or only in Christ as a Ransom and yet as a Ransom and as dying he purchaseth Sanctification as well as Justification Or. Whether faith in Christ as Christ or only faith in Christ as Purchasing Justification be the condition of our Justification Reader Having shewed the darkness of that Light that caused Mr. Ws. Exercitation and overthrown its Basis I shall put thee to no further trouble To my Reverend Brother Mr. John Warner Preacher of the Gospel at Christs Church in Hantshire Sir THough through the privacy of my habitation I never so much as heard of your name before your Book of the Object and Office of faith was in the Press yet upon tht perusal of it I confidently conclude that a zeal for God and that which you verily think to be his Truth hath moved you to this undertaking and doubtless you think that you have done God service by it I love your zeal and your indignation against Error and your tendernese of so great a point as that of Justification And could I find your Light to be answerable to your heat I hope I should also love and honour it Had you not taken me with the two Reverened Brethren whom you oppose to be the enemies of the person and Grace of the Lord Jesus or the followers of them as you say Epist pag. 6. I am perswaded you would not have either called us so or thought your self called to this assault And if I love Christ I must love that man that hateth me though mistakingly for the sake of Christ That principle within you that hath made Christ and Truth so dear to you that you rise up for that which seemeth to you to be Truth I hope will grow till you attain perfection in that world of Light that will end our differences I shall not go about to dèprecate your indignation for my plain expressions in this Defence when the nature of your matter did require them For I am not so unresonable as to expect that fair words should reconcile a good man to those that he takes to be enemies to Christ or to their followers But as I can truly say if I know what is in my heart that the Reading of your Book hath bred no enmity to you in my brest but only kindled a love to your zeal with a compassion of your darkness and a dislike of your so much confidence in the dark so it shall be my care as it is my duty to love you as a mistaken servant of Christ though you should take me for his greatest enemy And therefore being conscious of no worse affections to you I desire that Justice of you as to impute the ungratefull passages that you meet with to my apprehension of the badness of your cause and Arguments and a compassion to the poor Church that must be troubled and tempted and endangered by such gross mistakes and not to any contempt of your person with which I meddle not but as you are the Author of those Arguments In your Preface I find a Law imposed by you on your Answerer which I have not fully observed 1. Because I had written my Reply to your Arguments a considerable time before I saw your Preface
For it fell out that I first saw your Book without the Epistle and Preface 2. Because I thought it fittest to follow the Method that my Subject and the Readers â—â—dification did require 3. Yet did I once purpose to have answered all that was of moment in your Book against the Truth but upon trial I found your Reasons so inconsiderable that weariness interrupted me and put an end to my Reply and withal I grew confident that my labour would be to little purpose For I dare venture any Judicious Divine upon your Book without the help of a Reply And for the rest it is not replying that will serve turn but either prejudice will hold them to the side that they have taken or else they will think him in the right that hath the last word when they have read mine they will think that I am in the right and when they have again read yours they will think that you carry the cause and when they read my Reply again they will say you were mistaken but usually they will go with the party that is in greatest credit or hath most interest in them or advantage on them But yet I think you will find that none of your strength against me is neglected For I can truly say that when I think not meet to Answer all that a man hath said I never pass by that which I take to be his strength but purposely call out that and leave that which I think is so grosly weak as to need no answer So much of your ten Demands or Laws as I apprehended necessary I have here answered supposing what I had said of the same points in my first Disputation which I saw no Reason too often to Repeat I am none of those that blame you for too much of the Metaphysicks but rather mervail that you feared not lest your Metaphysical Reader will wrong you by mis-applying your cited Schegkius contrary to your better opinion of your self and take both your Schegkius and your Scaliger for Prophets that could speak as if they had read your Book and been acquainted with your arguings But it seems you are not the first of that way By your Arguments in your Preface I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause to prove that there are divers acts of Faith whereas I am so far from denying it that I am ready to demonstrate that even the faith by which we are Justified is liker to have twenty acts then one only but many certainly it hath Your first Argument is from the different objects because the Objects specifie the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute But 1. This is no proof that one act only is it that we are justified by 2. Where you add that Justifying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter you beg the Question and assert no light mistake But where you add in its act of Justifying you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error which leadeth you to the rest by naked affirmations Faith hath properly no justifying act Justificare est efficere Faith doth not effect our Justification we are justified by faith indeed but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect but Accept when offered If you â—â—nâ— see so plain a Truth in its Evidence yet observe by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals course that its a passive instrumentality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively you must mean only effective non formaliter a denying subjection to him as Lord. You err so great but so rare an error that I suppose it needless to confute it All Christians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed that Believing in Christ as Prophet and King is a real part of faith and that unbelief or rejecting him as Prophet and King is a real part of unbelief Your second Argument is from the different subjects where you give us two such palpable Fictions that its a wonder you can make your self believe them much more that you should lay so great a stress on such absurdities The first is that the Act of Faith is in several faculties and you elswhere give us to understand that it is one Physical Act that you mean And do you think in good sadness that one single Physical act can be the act of both the faculties The second is that the fear love and obedience to Christ as King is but in the Will But 1. That Readers do you expect that will take an Assertion of Fear-Love and Obedience in stead of an assertion concerning Faith Were you not comparing faith in Christ as King with faith in Christ as Priest only And why speak you not of faith in one part of your comparison as well as in the other Your conclusion now is nothing to the Question 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Christ as King is not in both faculties as well as Faith in Christ as Priest or sacrifice did you think that any man of ordinary understanding would ever believe you without any proof or that ever such a thing can be proved Your third Argument is Because they are in a different time exerted the one that is Faith as Justifying being precedaneous to the other and to other Graces Answ Wonderfull Is that man justified that believeth not in Christ as the King and Prophet of the Church Do you believe this your self why then an Infidel is justified by Faith The ' Belief in Christ as a Sacrifice or Priest only is not the Christian faith it is not faith in Christ properly because it is not faith in Christ as Christ For Christ as Priest only is not Christ A Heart only is not Corpus humanum A Body only is not a Man where there are three essential parts one of them is not the Thing without the rest The name Jesus Christ signifieth the office as well as the person It is essential to that Office that he be Prophet and King And hereby you shew that you do not only distinguish but divide For where there is a distance of time between the Acts there is a division Do you think that we are Christs enemies or followers of them unless we will believe you that a man is Justified by Believing in Christ only as a Priest or Ransom or in his Righteousness before ever be believe in him as King and Lord and so as Teacher c. If I had said that you are Christs enemy for such Doctrine
neither a continued Act nor renewed or repeated neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed are any conditions of our Justification in this Life This may seem a heavy charge but it is a plain Truth For that Justification which we receive upon our first believing hath only that first Act of faith for its condition or as others speak its Instrumental cause We are not justified to day by that act of Faith which we shall perform to Morrow or a Twelvemonth hence so that according to your opinion and all that go that way it is only one the first Act of Faith which justifies and all the following Acts through our whole life do no more to our Justification then the works of the Law do I would many other Divines that go your way for it is common as to the dispatching of Justification by one Act would think of this foul absurdity You may add this also to what is said before against your opinion herein Where then is the Old Doctrine of the just living by faith as to Justification I may bear with these men or at least need not wonder for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Justification as continued when they will not admit faith it self Who speaks more against faith they or I When I admit as necessary that first act and maintain the necessity of repeated acts to our continued Justification and they exclude all save one Instantaneous act 2. And what reason can any man give why Repentance should be admitted as a condition of our first Justification and yet be no condition of the continuance of it or what proof is there from Scripture for this I shall prove that the continuance of our Justification hath more to its condition then the beginning though learned men I know gain-say it but surely less it cannot have 4. But why do you say only of Repentance that it is the condition of Remision and of forgiving others that it is the condition of entring into life Have you not Christs express words that forgiving others is a condition of our Remission if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will forgive you but if you forgive not men c. Nay is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveness I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorisms Wash you make you clean put away the evil of your doings c. then if your sins be as crimson c. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy And I would have it considered if Remission and Justification be either the same or so neer as all Divines make them whether it be possible that forgiving others and Reformat on or new Obedience should be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Act and not of Justification Doubtless the general Justification must be continued as well as the general pardon and a particular Justification I think after particular sins is needfull as well as particular pardon or if the name should be thought improper the thing cannot be denyed Judicious Ball saith as much as I yet men were not so angry with him Treat of Covenant pag. 20.21 A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final Absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and Eternal bliss And pag. 21. This walking in the light as he is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Christs Righteousness or actual participants of his propitiation which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification taken for Remission of sins or actual approbation with God And pag. 73. Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that faith which justifieth So he 5. How will you ever prove that our Entering into Life and our continued remission or Justification have not the same conditions that those Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other Indeed the men that are for Faiths Instrumentality say somewhat to it but what you can say I know not And for them if they could prove Faith Instrumental in justifying co nomine because it receives Christ by whom we are justified they would also prove it the Instrument of Glorifying because it Receives Christ by and for whom we are saved and Glorified And so if the Instrumentality of Faith must exclude obedience from justifying us it must also exclude it from Glorifying us And I marvel that they are so loose and easie in admitting obedience into the work of saving and yet not of continuing or consummating Justification when the Apostle saith By Grace ye are saved by Faith and so excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Justification in particular 6. But lastly I take what you grant me in this Section and profess that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cause that I stand upon For as you grant 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant 2. That Repentance also is the condition of Remission which is near the same with Justification 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification which hath the same conditions with final and continued Justification 4. So you seem to yield all this as to our full justification at Judgement For you purposely limit the conditionality of meer faith to our Justification in this Life But if you yield all that I desire as you do if I understand you as to the last justification at Judgement then we are not much differing in this business For I take as Mr. Burges doth Lect. of Justification 29 our compleatest and most perfect Justification to be that at Judgement Yea and that it is so eminent and considerable here that I think all other Justification is so called chiefly as referring to that And me thinks above all men you should say so too who make Justification to lie only in sententiâ— judicis and not in sententia Legis And so all that go your way as many that I meet with do If then we are justified at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement by obedience as the secondary part of the condition of the Covenant which you seem to yield 1. We are agreed in the main 2. I cannot yet believe that our Justification at that Bar hath one condition and our Justification in Law or in this Life as continued another He that dyeth justified was so justified in the hour of dying on the same conditions as he must be at Judgement For 1. There are no conditions to be performed after death 2. Sententia Legis sententia judicis do justifie on the same terms Add to all
Lord. But such an accepting of him is not properly or in the account of God or in it self Faith or obedience Ergo. The Minor I prove if purposes intentions or verbal professions to believe or obey are not properly faith obedience then such an accepting is not faith or obedience The Minor proved That which is or may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience Bu Ergo. Answ The Lord pardon the hardness of my heart that hath no more compassionate sense of the miseries of that poor Church and the dishonour of God which such Disputes as this proclaim by Arguments as fit to be answered by Tears as by words 1. A little before he was proving Argument 12. that none could call Christ Lord but by the Spirit and therefore this act was after Justification And now he proveth that its common to Hypocrites Reprobates 2. Here he delivereth me from all the trouble and fallacy that the distinction of fides quae Justificat and fides qua Justificat hath been guilty of For if the act that we dispute about be no faith at all then it is not the fides quae And yet he often is upon the Qua Justificans himself forgetting this 3. Had I but delivered such a Doctrine as this what should I have heard Justifying faith hath three Parts ASSENT CONSENT and AFFIANCE which also have several acts or parts according to the divers essential parts of the Object ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rest as all acts of the Intellect are to those of the Will CONSENT is the same which we here call ACCEPTING which is but the meer VOLITION denominated from its respect to the offer and thing offered This as it is in the will the commanding Faculty so is it as it were the Heart of Faith the first act being but to lead in this and AFFIANCE the third being commanded much by this or depending on it For as it is seated in the Affections so far it is distinct from this Velle or CONSENT Now when ever we name Faith by any one of these three acts as the Scripture doth from every one we include them all though to avoid tediousness we stand not to name all the parts when ever by one word we express the whole And all these Acts have whole Christ in all the essentials of his Person and office for their object Now that this faith in Christ as Lord or accepting him should be said and that by a Christian Divine and that in the Reformed Church to be no faith at all to say nothing of his denying it to be obedience is no matter of honour or comfort to us How oft doth the Scripture expresly mention faith in our Lord Jesus Christ Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord Col 2.6 with other equipollent terms But I will not offer to trouble any Christian Reader with Arguments for such a Truth 4. But yet the man would be thought to have Reason for what he saith and to his proof I further answer 1. Purposes Intentions and verbal Professions were none of the terms or things in question but Accepting or Believing in Christ as Lord Teacher c. These are but concomitants the two first and the last a consequent 2. Is it the Act Accepting that this Brother disputeth against or is it the Object Christ as Lord as being none of the faith by which we are justified If it be the former 1. What Agreement then hath this Argument with all the rest or with his question 2. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture that calleth Faith a Receiving of Christ and maketh it equipollent with Believing in his Name John 1.11.12 Col. 2.6 3. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the Protestant Faith that maketh Christ himself as Good to be the Object of faith to be embraced or chosen or accepted by the will as well as the word as True to be Assented to by the understanding But if it be the Object that he meaneth then what force or sense is there in his Argument from the terms Purposing Intending Confessing Let him name what Act he please so it respect this Object and if it be an Act of faith indeed it s all one as to our present Controversie If he take Consent willing or Accepting of Christ to be no act of Faith let him name any other that he will own for I would quarrel as little as may be about words or impertinent things and let that be it 4. And how could he choose but see that his Argument is as much against Accepting Christ as Priest as against Accepting him as Lord to Justification No doubt but a man that had the common Reason to write but such a book as this must needs see this if he regard what he said And therefore I must take it for granted that his Argument is against both alike even to prove that Accepting of Christ as Lord or as Saviour is no faith or obedience at all But the Reader will hardly believe till he weigheth it that a waking man would reason thus upon such a Question as this in hand 5. Consenting that Christ shall be my Lord and Teacher and Head doth imply a consent and so a Purpose of future obeying learning and receiving from him And so consenting that Christ shall be my Righteousness Intercessor and Justifier doth imply a Purpose of Trusting in him for the future And yet this consent in both cases is Justifying faith 6. And its dolefull Doctrine were he a true Prophet to all Gods Church that Purposes and Intentions to believe and obey are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates For though there are superficial uneffectual purposes and Intentions in them as there is an uneffectual faith in them yet if no Purposes and Intentions will prove men Saints then nothing in this world will prove them Saints For the Evidences of Grace are more certain to him that hath them in the Heart then in the outward Actions And in the Heart the very new Creature lyeth much in these two Desires themselves will prove true Grace Much more when they rise to setled Purposes Why else did Barnabas exhort the young beginners that with purpose of Heart they should cleave unto the Lord as intimating that their stability lay in this And Intentions are the very Heart of the New man For Intention is that act that is exercised about the End which is God himself Intendere finem is no more then Velle vel Amare Deum It is the Love of God above all And if this be common to Hypocrites and Reprobates what a case are we in then I hope I have given you a sufficient account of the Impertinency and vanity of Mr. Warners fifteen Arguments To which he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians Arminians and I know not who to assure you that we his new Adversaries do joyn with that company and plead their cause And he that