bee more expresly cleared I could not divine and had liberty to use my own method This onely I know that inclinations to sin are there exprest to bee sins and that clearely enough that hee may discerne it who hath so much leisure from quarrelling as to bewaile them And indeed you need not tell me what dangerous consequences have been inferred from doubtfull expressions in Catechismes c. For I have an example before mine eyes of one that will inferre those consequences from one word in such a Booke that the whole sense of the place contradicts directly as much as sin and no sin are contradictories and then 't is but reason a man were allow'd pardon and not triumph'd over presently for being willing when 't is by anothers fault become so necessary to explaine And so much for the third report The fourth that about faiths being whether a condition or instrument of Iustification I cannot observe by your words that you have at all insisted on in either assembly for though you deny it not yet also you affirme nothing as in the two former which you owne and as in the last you are pleased to doe Either then you spake to this particular and then although it bee a fault in you not to acknowledge it yet till I am sure of it and that my reputation is concerned in it I have no reason farther to importune you or else you did not speake to it and consequently did mee no injury in that particular and then I truly cannot accuse you having no authority that you did worth my depending on and that which I had contradicted by others as the other of the Trinity which proved untrue and so the rather inclines mee to beleeve that this is so also On these grounds I have no temptation to adde more to this matter because the whole businesse which brought us now together was to vindicate my selfe from and that made it necessary for me to know what had been your accusations and not to render you at this time which I can spend much more profitably to my selfe and others an account of my faith save onely where you have calumniated it Yet because it is possible that the questions here proposed by you may through some mistake or ignorance of the grounds that I goe on bee matter of some scruple to you and it may bee my duty to prevent those mistakings I have now thought fit to tell you what is the generall ground that I build on in this matter by analogy to which you may forme an answer to those questions and reconcile those seeming differences which you may have taken notice of My grounds are these 1 That justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sin 2 That the mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification 3 This worke of justification is of such a nature consisting meerly in Gods pronouncing us just accepting and pardoning a worke of God without us upon us concerning us but not within us that consequently nothing within us can have any reall proper efficiency in this worke for then that whatever it is must bee said to justifie i. e. to accept and pardon which nothing in us can be said to doe though but minus principaliter secundario or realiter instrumentaliter for if it had any such efficiency there might in strict speaking be some reall vertue or force in that thing and that proportionable to the effect in some measure at least it must act virtute primae causae and by the impulsion of that might immediately produce the effect which any even grace as it is in us hath not force enough to doe For either it must doe it as an inferiour meritorious cause subordinate to Christs merits or as an inferiour efficient cause subordinate to Gods pardoning and accepting and then as I said that must pardon and accept also immediately though not principally as the knife cuts immediately though the hand or the man principally 4 This work of grace in God through Christ thus justifying is not every mans portion some qualification or condition there is required in the subject in the person whose sinnes God will thus pardon in Christ or without which God that justifies the sinner will not yet justifie the impenitent infidell the promises of God though generall being yet conditionall promises and the promise of pardon being one of them as shall be proved at large if you thinke fit 5 This condition is set downe in severall phrases in the Scripture Conversion Repentance Regeneration but especially receiving of Christ faith in the heart an embracing of Christ the whole Christ taking him as our Priest whose sacrifice and whose intercession to depend on as our King whose throne to bee set up in our hearts as our Prophet to submit our understandings to his doctrines and captivate them to the obedience of faith 6 This grace of faith hath mauy excellent offices and efficiencies one principall one laying hold on the promises laying hold on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others also of subduing the passions mortifying lusts overcomming the world In all these being workes wrought in us by God principally instrumentally by this grace Faith is an efficient But all this doth not at all conclude it to bee in any propriety of speech an efficient or any kinde of logicall proper cause in the act of justification because there is no need of any such God being ready to doe his worke to performe his promise i. e. to justifie the penitent beleever and whensoever by his grace that qualification is wrought in the heart or there but truly rooted God pronounces that man just I have out of my heart set downe my sense which I suppose you will finde every where scattered in the Booke I desire not that it may prove a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between us in case there bee any word hastily let fall which though to mee that understood my owne meaning it bee plaine to you especially if you delight to bee captious may want explication but yet I would bee glad to heare if there bee any poyson in any of these propositions and whether and wherein I am mistaken If not I suppose you will be able to answer all your twelve quaeries out of these premises or discerne that it was impertinent to aske them these grounds being thus supposed I shall I think onely need to adde that as soone as ever this new creature hath life in him at the first cordiall receiving the whole Christ in vow or resolution sincere i. e. at the first minute of conversion thus to God the person is justified not one of those in time after the other but in order of nature as naturally the condition must be undertaken before the Covenant belongs to mee but at what minute soever this is done God puts away his wickednesse c. I have sinned saith David and the Lord hath put away thy sinne saith Nathan
former proposition and meaning it in the very same latitude that thereit had been used for the entire not partiall or first or one part of justification To let this passe when you had taken notice of it was not an act of charity but justice in you yet that whirh would have beene very welcome to mee many times For just from as true or solid ground as this have many of your other exceptions sprang up and have not so candidly beene laid downe by you To your next questions which you professe to aske that mistakes may bee prevented upon that account I professe to answer most cheerefully for I see how wearisome a thing it is to have been mistaken To your first quaere Why the grace of God in justifying c. doth not extend to every man for whom Christ hath satisfied I answer clearely because Christs satisfaction is not absolutely for all or that they may bee pardoned whatever they doe how infidell or impenitent soever they continue but conditionally for all and thereupon that grace of justification extends to none but those who performe the Condition For your second 't is very nice and might sure have beene spared in this businesse That because God hath been affirmed by me to require regeneration as a condition to justification therefore I must tell you what condition God requires unregenerate persons to performe that they may attaine unto regeneration To question thus were infinite and to this matter of justification utterly unnecessary But yet I shall not faile you in any thing I le satisfie you in that also God requires in the unregenerate man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Ancients expresse it a readinesse to obey his call not to resist but receive his grace when hee bestows it on him and having received it what degree soever it bee to cherish and make use of it and this by his grace God enables him to doe As for your demand of mee by way of retribution that I must grant that God doth justifie the ungodly i. e. the man that is guilty of many sinnes I make no question of that if hee bee a penitent and so may hee bee and yet bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still in the sense that I conceive belongs to that word Rom. 4. 5. that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one that continues impenitent in sinne but one that neither hath nor doth performe exact perfect legall obedience which is very reconcileable if not the same with what you confesse That God never justifies an impenitent infidell in sensu composito i. e. never any that is then infidell or remains impenitent To your third I answer that there is such a condition which doth so qualifie the subject that I can say by it and onely by it I am justified i. e. by it onely as a condition not including any causality in it And if you will know what that condition is you have been oft told already and I now tell you Faith in the nation wherein it signifies a receiving the whole Christ and containes in it a resolution of obeying Christs Commands as well as of depending on him for mercy And on supposition or condition that you grant that and so speake of faith as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will speake with you in the dialect of the first sort of the men you mention and say that faith is required to receive the object of justification Christ c. but withall adde that it is required as a condition too to dispose or qualifie the subject and that without this condition no man living shall bee justified Which being premised it shall not yet follow from thence that by this he shall bee sa you say constituted righteous if by constituted by you attribute any causality to this qualification or any thing but that of being a condition by which hee is justified i. e. is not jnstified without it And so this is as plain as I can devise too and mee thinkes there should bee no mistake For in the sense wherein I have now exprest my selfe I doe again consent to your conclusion that God doth by his free and effectual grace worke in the hearts of his elect to receive Christ that is the Whole Christ that they may be justified not by their owne obedience or vow of obedience as by a cause but by obedience of Christ alone freely imputed by God and rested on by faith onely It being one act of that faith by which the just doe live to have affiance or rest on Christ. In your moreover it may also bee true that there may be some difference between disposing the subject to salvation and to justification as the cordiall habit of faith aud sincere vow may dispose to justification and in case of living to occasions and opportunities the acts of faith and actuall performances will bee required yet so that he that is disposed for justification if he should then presently dye were disposed to salvation also Which notwithstanding I shall also add with you 1 That there is faith required to receive the object Christ Iehova our righteousnesse and grace prerequired to enable thus to beleeve and obedience to or making use of that grace the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12. 28. a condition required in us to that end that grace may have its perfect worke on us And 2 that all the acts and habits of grace which are in the best men concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God And therefore faith concurring so with such a vow or with faithfull actions cannot justifie us This I write out of your Paper as fast as I can drive and by the way you see some difference betweene our tempers I consent to as much of yours as possibly I can and labour to take as few exceptions you on the contrary have another method in reading them that you are not kinde to and consent to it most fully at first sight and never remember to have doubted of it since I considered Divinity But for your addition Of faiths justifying relatively you must give mee leave not to take that into my forme of Doctrine being not very intelligible but to use my owne expressions as conceiving them more perspicuous and commodious to the notions I have of this matter viz. Thus that Christ onely justifies Faith receives Christ but yet still by no way of causality justifies is causall indeed in receiving Christ but onely the condition in justifying because though receiving is an act of ours and in us yet justification is an act onely of Gods upon us and concerning us Which in effect you yeeld also when you say that Faith cannot pardon sinnes or accept For then it cannot justifie At this time me thinks we are excellently well agreed I wish it may long continue But then in the next words wee are out againe I am now lookt on as one that abuses Scripture for the maintenance of errors
were mis-informed and I thanke you for your endeavour to prevent mistakes Truly Sir I doe not wilfully mistake your sense nor doe I desire to take any advantage of an hasty expression Your first Proposition is that justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sinne I will not stand to aske you why you put acceptation before pardon it is likely that was not done de industrià but I would know why you speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation I observe that in your second proposition you doe affirme that The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification Doe not thinke mee too curious since you desire mee to give my opinion of these propositions you know there are some that distinguish between a first and second justification and they doe expresse themselves warily and they will grant what you say so you will give them leave to chuse which they meane this or that justification But I will judge charitably of you hoping that by this justification you intend not to imply that there is another justification and so as they say a first and second justification Give me leave to aske you a question or two about the second proposition compared with the fourth and with some passages in your Practicall Catechisme that by a cleare answer to a few quaeres many mistakes may be prevented In your second proposition you say The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of justification In your Catechisme you say That Christ did sacrifice himselfe for all the sin of all mankinde and yet in your fourth proposition in this last return you say That this worke of grace in God through Christ is not every mans portion Sir if Christs satisfaction bee the sole cause and hee hath made satisfaction for every man the grace of God which extends as farre as Christs satisfaction must be the portion of every man for his justification by the obedience of Christ alone My first quaere then is 1 Why the grace of God in justifying those for whom Christ hath satisfied doth not extend to every man for whom he hath satisfied 2 Whether the qualification and condition which you require in the subject bee bestowed upon the elect absolutely or conditionally Regeneration you say is a condition which doth dispose the subject for justification that is for acceptance and pardon as I conceive and you expresse Pray Sir shew mee what condition God requires unregenerate persons to perform that they may attaine unto regeneration which you take to be the condition of justification I acknowledge that God doth never justifie an impenitent infidell in sensu composito that is the infidell doth not remaine an impenitent infidell but then you must grant on the other side that God doth justifie the ungodly 3 Whether there be any condition which doth so qualifie the subject as that you can say by these habits acts vowes and these onely I am justified Pract. Catech. page 28. Sir Learned men say that there is no condition required to dispose the subject for justification but there is a condition namely Faith bestowed upon none but the elect to receive the object of justification Christ and his compleate obedience perfect righteousnesse and hence as I conceive some men that meant well say there is a condition required that is to receive the object and others say there is no condition required that is to dispose or qualifie the subject so as that the subject shall bee constituted righteous by that disposition or qualification I speake as plainely as I can devise that there may bee no mistake God doth by his free and effectuall grace worke the hearts of his elect to receive Christ that they may bee justified not by their own obedience or vow of obedience but by the obedience of Christ alone freely imputed by God and rested on by faith onely Moreover Learned men doe distinguish betweene disposing of the subject to salvation which is the last part of the excution of Gods decree of election and disposing the subject unto justification though they grant that there is a condition to enable the subject to receive the object Jesus Christ who is Iehovah our righteousnesse And therefore Protestants do maintaine that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best of men concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God and therefore faith concurring with a vow of obedience or any faithfull actions cannot justifie us Though faith alone bee said to justifie us Relatively that is in regard of the object received by faith I acknowledge with you that justification is Gods act wee cannot pardon out selves and God sitting as a fatherly Judg upon a throne of grace doth justifie us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome upon the 8. of Rom. 33. vers Sir let me intreat you not to wonder that I find fault with some passages in your Book which you say are in effect places of Scripture Sir to abuse the Scripture for the maintenance of any error is to my apprehension a great deale worse then to deliver any erroneous conceits in our own language The Papists say as you doe that they say no more then St. Iames himselfe saith I did not dreame that you thought Abraham was justified by the actuall sacrificing of his sonne Socinus saith Abraham was justified by offering up of Isaac I doe not think he means it in any other sense then that which you repeat namely that Abraham was justified by a resolution to obey God in the sacrificing of his Sonne not by the actuall sacrificing of him Sir I am heartily glad to heare you acknowledg that you agree with mee in the conclusion bee pleased to retract all that is contrary to that conclusion in your Pract. Catechisme and then I am sure you must retract what I complained of Pray Sir doe you not thinke that we are justified by a sincere vow of obedience as truly as wee are by faith that is that our vow of obedience is a condition of Justification I doe not say an instrument for you deny faith to bee an instrument of justification And therefore if a sincere vow of obedience be the condition of justification wee are justified as truly by that as by faith 2 Consider that you say in this last returne p. 20. The condition must bee undertaken before the Covenant belongs to me This vow or resolution of obedience is as I conceive that which you call the undertaking of the condition why then surely obedience is the condition of the Covenant of justification for obedience is that which is undertaken in a vow of obedience 3 If by Covenant you meane the whole Covenant of grace you must make some condition goe before our regeneration also 4 You know the Papists speake as fully as you doe any where for the meritorious satisfaction of Christ but you know what