your Grounds conduce to it more then mine I shall like them better Sir pardon the prolixity here and Acrimony elswhere of Your unfeigned well-willer RICHARD BAXTER THE Reader must understand that since the Writing of this I have endeavoured to clear this point in my Directions for Peace of Conscience To which now I add but this that besides a Plenary Guilt or Remission there seems to be a Guilt and Remission that are both but imperfect and of a middle sort that is that as in Peters act of sin the habit of faith remained so with his Guilt a state of Justification remained As none of his old sins returned on him so the Covenant of Grace upon his Habitual Faith did hinder the Guilt from being Plenary or fixed by beginning a Remission I fear not to call it an imperfect Remission The Law doth pronounce Death on a man for every sin it is so far in force as to determine that Death is both deserved and due to this man for this sin But at the same instant though after in order of nature the Gospel that giveth pardon to Believers doth give an Imperfect pardon to David Peter and such Habitual Believers as soon as they sin before Faith and Repentance for that sin be actuall and their Pardon will become plenary when they actually Repent and Believe Their Sin is like the fault of a Kings Son or Subject that in a Passion should strike the King when yet Habitually he hath a loving Loyal heart to him He deserveth Death and by Law it may be his due but he is a Son still and the King will not take this advantage against him though he will not fully pardon him till he submit and lament his Fault We are still the Children of God notwithstanding those sins that go against the Habitual bent of our Hearts for that 's the Tryal but must have actual Faith and Repentance before we shall have full pardon Whether you will call that Pardon which the Promise giveth upon meer habitual Repentance A vertual Pardon and that which it giveth on actual Repentance an actual Pardon or what name you will give it I leave to consideration but compleat it is not in a case of heynous sin till Actual Repentance Though it may be in a case of some unknown unobserved or forgotten infirmities For the full condition is necessary to a full Pardon He is near the case of a man that hath a Pardon granted him for Murder but for want of some action to be performed he hath not yet possession of it and cannot yet plead it If you ask me what should become of such a man if he so die before Repentance I answer 1. I think it is a case that will never fall out For 1. God is as it were engaged by Love and Promise and by giving his indwelling Spirit to Believers to bring them to Repentance 2. The new Nature or Disposition of such a man will not suffer him to be long without Actual Repentance at least in some measure especially when Death shall look him in the faâ—e I doubt not but David did repent before Nathan spoak to him but God would not wake up with so short and secret a Repentance for so great and odious a Crime 2. But if you can prove it profitable for such a 〈◊〉 to be suddenly cut off before Repentance and that such a thing will be I should incline to think that he will be fully pardoned at the instant of Death and so saved because the Lord knoweth that he repented Habitually and vertually and would have done it actually if he had had time for consideration 3. Or if we should conclude that God hath purposely left men of such a middle condition without any certainty how he will deal with them that so no man may be encouraged to sin and in Impudency I think it no dangerous Doctrine nor injurious to the Body of saving Truth And thus I have now many years since the writing of the foregoing Papers told you in brief what satisfieth me concerning this difficult point for the reconciling of the guilt of every particular sin especially the more haynous with the Doctrine of persevering uninterrupted Justification Somewhat also I have said of it in my Papers expressing my Judgement about Perseverance lately published Jan. 5. 1657. 8. THE FOURTH DISPVTATION Qu. Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of Faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the Soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. I PUT these two Questions together for brevity and Elucidation of the Matter in doubt for so in effect they are but One avoiding all unnecessary Explication of terms concerning which we are agreed it is but little that I have need to say for your understanding of the sense of the Question 1. It is here supposed that Paul doth maintain Justification by Faith and opposeth it to Justification by the works of the Law and so opposeth Salvation by Grace and by works 2. It is supposed that non datur tertium there is no middle way of Justification besides these two by faith or by Works and therefore whatsoever Acts we are here justified by it must needs follow that those Acts are none of the Works that Paul here speaketh of as excluded and whatsoever Acts are excluded are none of the Faith by which Paul telleth us here that we are justified This we are agreed on and so it is often pressed by my Opponents that there is no third way which I grant them But note that I do not therefore grant them that there is no tertium or other act either implyed in Faith or subservient to it in that way of Justification that is by Faith It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all other Gracious Acts relating to Christ no not from this business of Justification as attendants on Faith or modifications of it implyed in it or subservient to it And therefore it will not follow that any third thing by which we are thus justified is either Faith or Works but only that is not Works because they are excluded 3. I put the Physical Act whose Unity we speak of in contradistinction to one moral Fact which may contain many Physical Acts such as Marriage which is one in a civil or moral sense but many Physical Acts and such as almost all Contracts be as taking a man to be my
his heart that Christ was the son of God and so received him as Christ entirely Argument 5. If it be a necessary Condition of our being baptized for the Remission of sin that we profess a belief in more then Christs Humiliation and merits then is it a necessary Condition of our actual Remission of sin that we really believe in more than Christs Humiliation and Merits But the Antecedent is certain For the Prescript Mat. 28.19 20 and the constantly used form of Baptism and the Texts even now mentioned 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 8.37 do all shew it And I have more fully proved it in my Dispute of Right to Sacraments And the Consequence is undeniable And I think all will be granted Argument 6. If the Apostles of Christ themselves before his death were justified by believing in him as the son of God and the Teacher and King of the Church yea perhaps without believing at all in his Death and Ransom thereby then the believing in him as the son of God and Teacher and King conjunct with believing in his blood are the faith by which we are now justified But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is because it is utterly improbable that the addition of further light and objects for our faith should null the former and that which was all or so much of their justifying faith should be now no part of ours The Antecedent I prove Matth. 16.21.22 23. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his Disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and be raised again the third day then Peter took him and began to rebuke him saying Be it far from thee Lord this shall not be unto thee c. John 12.16 These things understood not his Disciples at the first but when Jesus was glorified then c. Luke 28. Then he took unto him the twelve and said unto them Behold we go up to Jerusà lem and all things that are written by the Prophets concerning the son of man shall be accomplished For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles and shall be mocked and spitefully intreated and spit upon and they shall scourge him and put him to death and the third day he shall rise again And they understood none of these things and this saying was hid from them neither knew they the things which were spoken Luke 24.20 21 22. The chief Priests and Rulers delivered him to be condemned to death and have crucified him but we trusted that it had been be which should have redeemed Israel and beside all this to day is the third day since these things were done and certain women also of our company made us astonished which were early at the Sepulchre O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his Glory vers 45. Then opened be their understanding that they might understand the Scripture John 20.9 For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead By all this it is plain that the Disciples then believed not Christs death or Resurrection Yet that they were justified is apparent in many Texts of Scripture where Christ pronounceth them clean by the word which he had spoken John 15.3 and oft called them blessed Mat. 5. 16.17 Luke 6. And he saith that the Father loved them John 16.27 They were branches in him the living Vine and exhorted to abide in him John 15 5 6 7. And that they were Believers is oft exprest and particularly that they Believed in him as the son of God and trusted it was he that should redeem Israel that is by Power and not by Death and that they took him for their Master and Teacher and the King of Israel some of them desiring to sit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom and striving who should be the greatest about him John 16.27 The Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me and have believed that I came out from God John 1.49 Nathaniel answered and saith unto him Rabbi thou art the son of God thou art the King of Israel Here was the saving faith of the Disciples Matth. 16.16 Simon Peter answered and said Thou art Christ the son of the living God Object But was it possible for them to be justified without the blood of Christ Answ No as to the Fathers acceptance his blood even then before it was shed was the meritorious cause of their Justification But they were justified by it without the knowledge or belief of it thought not without faith in Christ as the son of God the Messiah the Rabbi and the King of Israel Which also shews that faith did not then justifie them in the new Notion of an Instrumental cause apprehending the purchasing cause or that the effects of Christs several acts were not diversifyed according to the several acts of faith to those as Objects I hope all that have Christian Ingenuity will here understand that I speak not this in the least measure to diminish the excellency or necessity of that act of faith which consisteth in the believing on Christ as crucified or in his blood and Ransom Or that I think it less necessary then the other to us now because the Disciples then were justified without it I know the case is much altered and that is now of necessity to Justification that was not then But all that I endeavour is to shew that we are justified by the other acts of faith as well as this because it is not likely that those acts should not be now justifying in conjunction with this by which men were then justified without this Argument 7. If the satisfaction and merits of Christ be the only Objects of the justifying act of faith then according to their own principles they must on the same reason be the only obiects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith But the satisfaction and merit of Christ are not the only Objects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith therefore not of the justifying To this Mr. Blake answereth by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit and four terms in the Syllogism as in other terms I had expressed it And saith We look at Christ for justification as satisfying Iustice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting sanctification Repl. But this is his mis-understanding of plain words The term Meritor was not equivocal but the General comprehending both effects And that which he nakedly affirms is the thing which the Argument makes against Here it is supposed as a granted truth that we can be no more sanctified then justified without Christs blood and merits and so the scope of the Argument is this Christ as a Ransom and a Meritor of sanctification is not the only object of the sanctifying act of faith therefore by
Whether if Magistrates be Officers of Christ as King by Office they be not in his Kingdom and so Infidel Magistrates in Christs Kingdom contrary to Col. 1.14 4. If it be maintained That Christ died for every Child of Adam conditionally It would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant was the End or Effect of Christs death and whether the so Interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all will not serve for Evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs Satisfaction aad Merit proper to the Elect. For if they may be Interpreted so He died to procure the conditional Covenant for every one this may be alledged justly then you can prove no more thence for that is the sense and then we cannot prove thence he died loco nostro c. It is a matter of much moment and needs great Circumspection Yours Sir BEsides what hath been formerly suggested to you these words in your Scripture proofs pag. 323. And where he next saith that in the aged several dispositions are required to fit a man to receive pardon and so justification viz Catholike faith hope of pardon fear of punishment grief for sin a purpose against sining hereafter and a purpose of a new life all which dispose the Receiver and I agree to him though all do not are so like the Doctrine of the Trent Council sess 6. c. 6. that it will be expected you declare whether by avowing that speech of Dr. Ward you do not join with the Papists contrary to Bishop Downam of Justification l. 6. c. 7. § 1.2 Mr. Pemble vindict fidei § 2. c. 3. And when you make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience it s to be considered how you will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercifion of Justification upon the committing of a sin that wasts the conscience refuted by Dr. Rob. Abbot but vented after by Moutague in his appeal and opposed by Dr. Preston and others As for Justification by Law-Title by the Covenant upon actual Believing without any other act of God consequent on Faith if it were so 1. Then it should be by necessary Resultancy But Justification is an Act of Will and no act of Will is by necessary Resultancy 2. If the Covenant justifie without any other Act of God then it Adops Glorifies Sanctifies c. without any other Act which is not to be said The reason of the Sequel is because the Covenant of it self doth in the same manner produce the one as well as the other 3. The Justification of the Covenant is only conditional therefore not Actual Actual Justification is not till Faith be put and then Posit â conditione it is Actual A conditional is only a possible Justification it s only in potentia till the Condition be in act Now the Covenant doth only assure it on condition as a future thing not therefore as actual or present 4 The Covenant is an Act past Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.7 8. so not continued and consequently the Justification barely by it without any other Act must be past long since and not continued and he neither Justification Actual and in purpopse or virtual will be confounded or an effect shall be continued without the cause Jan. 17 1651. Yours I.T. Reverend Sir I AM more thankfull to you for these free candid rational Animadversions then I can now express to you yet being still constrained to dissent from you by the evidence of Truth I give you these Reasons of my dissent 1. First You think that the Scriptures cited are not to be intepreted of Justification in Title of Law because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification not the Sentence it self and is general and indeterminate to particular persons c. To which I answer 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant Promise the moral action thereof For you must know that this Promise of God 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est as Grotius speaks Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem But it is Perfecta Promissio ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Dominâ—i Est enim aut via ad alienaâ—ionem rei aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili 2. c. 11. § 2.3 4. 2. This Promise or Covenant of God is also his Testament and who knoweth not that a Testament is an Instrctment of proper Donation and not only a Prediction 3. Moreover this same which in one respect is a Covenant and Promise and in another a Testament is also truly part of Gods Law even the New constitution of Christ the Law-giver and King But â—ndoubtedly a Law which conferreth Right either absolutely or conditionally is the true and proper Instrument of that Effect and not only the presenting or promising away thereto The proper Effect or Product of every Law is Debitum aliquod Et de hoc debito determinare is its proper Act. Now therefore this Promise being part of Christs Law doth determine of and confer on us the Debitum or Right to sentential Justification having first given us an Interest in Christ and so to the Benefit of his satisfaction and this is Justificatio constitutiva You know a Deed of Gift though but conditional is a most proper Instrument of conferring the Benefits therein contained And is not the Promise undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift And doth he not thereby make over as it were under his hand the Lord Jesus and all his Benefits to them that will receive him So that when you say that his Promise to justifie upon condition is not justifying You may see it is otherwise by all the forementioned considerations of the nature of the Promise You may as well say a Testament or deed of Gift conditional doth not give or a Law doth not confer Right and Title And in these Relative benefits to give Right to the thing and to give the thing it self or right in it is all one still allowing the distance of time limited for both in the Instrument It is all one to give full right to son-ship and to make one a Son or at least they are inseparable Yea which weigheth most of all with me it being the proper work of Gods Laws to give Duness of or Right to Benefits it cannot be any other way accomplished that is within our Knowledge I think For Decree Purpose and so Predestination cannot do it they being Determinations de eventu and not de debito as such And the sentential declaration presupposeth this Debitum or true Righteousness an
General Dominion and whether it be not the plain and frequent speech of Scripture And on the other side whether it may not be of dangerous consequence as injurious to Christ to deny so great a part of his Dominion and excuse not Infidels from the guilt of Rebellion against the Redeemer And whether it be not introduced by Pious Divines meerly in heat of Disputation which usually carryeth men into extreams especially least they should yield to universal Redemption in any kind and least they should yield to the Magistrates power in Religion 4. Your last Question is about Universal Redemption If it be affirmed that Christ dyed for every child of Adam conditionally it would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant was the end or effect of Christs death and whether the so interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all will not serve for evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs satisfaction and merit proper to the Elect c. Answer 1. Though I do not doubt much of the point yet I have no mind to meddle with the question as it concerns those Pagans that never heard of Christ Not for fear of any disadvantage thence to the cause but 1. Because I find God speaks sparingly of those to whom he speaks not it concerns not us so much to know his Counsel concerning others 2. Because it is an ill way of arguing to lay the stress of all on the most obscure point as men do that study more how to silence an adversary then to see the Truth and to prove obscurum per obscurius 2. This is a point that I cannot give you my thoughts of in a few words there needs so much for Explication and therefore being but here touched I shall forbear 3. I doubt not but to prove abundantly from Scripture with much evidence what I assert in this 4. It was not the only nor the first effect of his Death that Christ was Satisfaction to Gods Justice for the Violation of the Law 5. That such a conditional Law or Covenant is granted and exstant in Scripture is as plain as most points in the Gospel and sure no such thing can be but upon Christs death as the meritorious cause 6. So interpreting these Texts which are so to be interpreted is no evasion And no Text will prove Christs satisfaction and Merit wholly proper to the Elect. Much less those which say He died for all men That God intendeth only the Elect to be certainly saved by Christs death I can easily prove from many other Texts But if I should prove it by these it were strange It is an ill consequence Christ died for all men therefore his satisfaction is proper to the Elect. 7. In point of Law the Elect have no more Title to Christ and his Benefits then any others as Elect before they believe But Gods Decree hath from Eternity appropriated Salvation by Christ only to the Elect in point of Event He that determined de eventu that only the Elect should be saved by Christ did yet â—hink it the fittest way to his glorious ends to make Christs Death a sufficient satisfaction for all to make in his new Law a free deed of Gift of Christ and all his Benefits to all that will receive him as he is offered yet not engaging himself to publish this Law to every particular man though it be of universal extent in the Tenor. The Promise names none as included nor excludeth any but who do wilfully exclude themselves But these things require fuller opening 8. Lastly Christ dying loco nostro as you say is a term that needs as great caution for the true understanding it as most that we make use of The right understanding of it is the main Ground of our safety and comfort The wrong understanding it is the very turning point to Antinomiâ—nism and the very Primum vivens ultimum moriens the Heart of the whole System of their Doctrine That Christ in the person of Mediator did suffer upon his voluntary undertaking what we should have else suffered and thereby made satisfaction to Gods Justice for the breach of his Law both Father and Son whose Will is one agreeing or resolving that yet no man should have actual Remission or Salvation hereby but on condition of receiving the Redeemer for their Lord and Saviour and thus Christ died loco omnium this is sound Doctrine That at the same time it was the secret Will or Eternal Decree of the Father and the Will of the Mediator de eventu to give effectually Grace to believe to his Chosen only and consequently that they only should be actually saved and thus he died only loco Electorum is also sound Doctrine But that Christ in dying did strictly represent the person of the sinner so as either naturally or morally in Law-sense we may be said to have satisfied then in or by him as the Law calls that the action of the Principal which is done per Delegatum Dâ—putaâ—um Vicarium c. this is the soul of Antinomianism and directly and unavoidably introduceth Justifican before Faith or before we are born the non-necessity of any other Justification but in foro conscientiae it certainly overthrowrth all pardon of sin at all and so all Petition for Pardon and all thanksgiving for it with the rest of their errors yea makes man his own Redeemer But I have been too long already I sensibly acknowledge the truth of what you say That this is a matter of great moment and needs great consideration I have bestowed more consideration about it then about any other point in Divinity YOUR unfeigned Friend and Brother who doubts not ere long to meet you in our Center and Rest where all our Difference in Judgement and Affection will be healed RICHARD BAXTER Kederminster June 9. 1651. Sir The multitude of my Employments caused me to delay the returning you my thoughts of your favourable Animadversions til I received your Additional paper which made me so very sensible of your Kindness that I could not but snatch the next opportunity thus truly to give you my further Thoughts as an account of the acceptance and success of your Pains June 20. Sir YEsterday I received your third Paper dated June 17. to which I thought best to give you this short Answer together seeing the former were not gone out of my hands You here touch very easily on two Subjects I will begin with the later viz. Your four Arguments against my Doctrine of Justification by the Gospel Grant or New Law Your first is that This is per resultantiam but Justification is an act of Will but no Act of Will is by necessary Resultancy Answer As it proceedeth from the Instrument or Foundation it is by Resultancy As by that Instrument it is the Act of the Legislator or Principal Agent so it is an Act of Will It was his Will at the