Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
pag. 51. Vulgar Divines as that they can thence conclude and publish me a slighter and contemner of my Brethren As if they that know England could be ignorant that the Churches among us have many such guides as may well be called Vulgar Divines Take them by number and judge in those Counties that I am acquainted in whether the greater number be of the Profound or Subtill or Angelical or Seraphical or Irrefragable sort of Doctors or equal to some of these Reverend Excepters whose worth I confess so far beyond my measure that had I spoke of them as Vulgar Divines they might well have been offended But O that it were not true that there are such through most of England Wales and Ireland if any on condition I were bound to Recant at every Market Cross in England with a fagot on my back so be it there were the same number of such choice men as some of these my offended Brethren are in their stead And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary weaker Teachers do take up that opinion which is most in credit and which is delivered by the most Learned Doctors whom they most reverence So that the summe of my speech can be no worse then this It is the most common opinion which is all one as to say It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and some of the Learned the other part of the Learned going the other way which is it that men censure for such an approbrious injurious speech Yet I will not wholly excuse it nor this that Mr Bl. toucheth upon I confess it was spoken too carelesly unmannerly harshly and I should better have considered how it might be taken As for Mr Blake's profession That he hath little of their Learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not so have described him but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks Let me be bold to shew him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called Righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works I prove thus 1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works but he that perfectly obeyeth so as never to sin then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent 2. If the Law of Works do curse and condemn all men then it doth not judge them Righteous nisi aequivocè But it doth curse and condemn all men Therefore c. 3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works taking righteous properly and not equivocally then we must be justified by our works according to that Law Lex n. est norma judicii omnis verè justus est justificandus Justificatio Legis est virtualiter justificatio judicis He that condemneth the Just is an abomination to God But we must not by the Law of Works be justified by our works Therefore c. 4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws is not denominated Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But we break all Gods Laws Therefore Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Reade Brochmond in Jac. 2.10 and Jacob. Laurentius and Paulus Burgensis in Lyra on the same Text. Vid. Placaeum in Thesib Salmuriens Vol. 1. pag. 29. § 13 c. Wotton de Reconcil Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16. Twiss Vindic. Grat. li. 2. part 1. c. 15. pag. vol. minore 214. col 2. See whether yours or mine be the Protestants doctrine Here if ever its true that Bonum est ex causis integris 5. If imperfect works are all sinnes or sinfull then they are not our Righteousness according to the Law of works For it justifieth no man for his sins But the former is true Therefore the later I doubt not but you know the state of the Controversie on this point between us and the Papists 6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous for imperfect works which truly and properly are but a less degree of unrighteousness then it seems that all wicked men if not the damned are legally righteous For they committed not every act of sin that was forbidden them and therefore are not unrighteous in the utmost possible degree And the Law of works doth not call one degree of obedience Righteousness more then another except it be perfect But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous nisi aequivocè Therefore c. 7. If our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience may be must be and is called our Righteousness as it is the performance of the conditions of the new Covenant or Law of Grace then at least not only as they have an imperfect agreement with the Law of Works But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons why He is wholly theirs in this ignorance He saith I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the morall Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Rep. Sed distinguendum est The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction and that either as it is the meer Law of nature or as containing also what to Adam was superadded or else it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law which is not the whole Law In the later sense it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature now used by Christ the Mediator as part of his own Law 2. We must distinguish of a Rule 1. There is the Rule of obedience or what shall be due from us This is the precept under which I comprehend the prohibition it being but praeceptuâ—â— non agendis 2. There is the Rule of reward determining what shall be due to us This is the conditional promise or gift so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio 3. There is the Rule of punishment determining what shall be due to man upon his sin This is the threatning 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment and of judging to whom they do belong determining on what conditions or terms on their parts men shall be saved or else damned though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties yet to constitute them conditions of the promise is a further thing This is the promise and threatning as they are conditional or as they constitute
Evidence of the great Principles and the Conexion I take yet for sound Doctrine The Scotists in opposition to the Thomists make much a doe on the question Virum Theologia sit Scientia And if properly Scientia it seems it must be evident Scotus lays down four things necessary to Science strictly and properly so called 1. Quod sit Cognitio cerâ—a i. e. sine deceptione 2. Quod sit de objecto necessario non contingente 3. Debet esse Causata à Causa Evidenti intellectui id est à principiis evidenter notis intellectui by which he saith Science is distinguished from Faith which is cognitio obscura aenigmaticaâ—â—â— inevidens 4. Quod hujusmodi principia seu causa ex terminis evidens intellectui debet applicari per discursum Syllogisticum bonum legitimum ad inferendam conclusionem and so Science is defined Notitia intellectualis certâ— Evâ—dens alicujus veri necessarii evidenter deducti ex princâ—pâ—is necessaâ—â—is prâ—us Evidenter notis Yet Rada saith the fourth of these is accidental And I see not but we have even such a rigid strict Science of the objects of Faith 1. It may be Notitia Intellectualis certa as all confess 2. And de objecto necessario Only let me add that when we make use of infallible Tradition de facto in proving the soundness of our Records that this was Contingens à priori yet is it necessary à posteriore necessitate existentiae and that as to the verity though it be contingent whether this or that particular man speak truth yet considering but the force of objects and common natural inclinations in determining the Will it may certainly be concluded that as to a whole Nation or World some voluntary actions are so Contingent as that yet they are of a most certainly discernable event Even men before hand may infallibly know that they will come â—o pass supposing the world to continue Rational As that all this Nation or all Europe will not famish themselves willfully and will not hang themselves c. is a thing that may as certainly be foreknown as if it were not Contingent much more may the Verity of such past actions be known 3. And that it may have evident principles shall be shown anon 4. And then that it is discoursive is clear Though Credere it self as it is the quieting and repose or confidence of the minde upon the authority or apprehended Veracity of the Revealeâ— is an effect of this discourse seeing siducia is not purely or chieflly an Intellectual act nor sidem alicui habere as it signifieth this repose Yet the Truth received on the Speakers Trust or Credit is received by the Intellect in a discoursive way Rada granteth these Conclusions 1. Theologia secundum se est verè propriè scientic 2. Theologia Dei respectu eorum quae funt necessaria secundem se est verè propriè scientâ—a 3. Theologia in beatis est propriè verè scientia quoad omnes 4. Conditiones scientiae Yet this eighth Conclusion is that Theologia prout est in nobis viatoribuâ— non est propriè strictè scientia And the great Argument to prove it is prout est in nobis est inevidens quia principia nostrae Theologiae sunt tantum Credita so that all the weight is laid on this inevidence Briefly my reasons for the Evidence of the Object of Divine Faith are these 1. If it be evident that Deus est Verax Deus haec testatur that God is true of his Word and that this is his Word or Revelation then Faith hath evident principles But the Antecedent is true therefore Into these principles we resolve all points of Faith Whatsoever God witnesseth is true but the Doctrine of the Resurrection judgment c. God witnesseth or revealeth therefore That God is true we have the same Evidence as that he is perfectly good and that is that he is God and that there is a God I take to be as evident a Truth as any in Nature to Reason though God himself be so far above our comprehension That this is a Divine Revelation hath also its evidence in evident miracles sealing it to the first witnesses and in Evidently Infallible Tradition delivering down to us the Records with the seals I doubt not to affirm that some humane Testimony affordeth such a Certainty as is unquestionable because of the Evidence of that Certainty as that King James was King of England c. and of the matter in question we have as great and in it self far greater But of this elsewhere 2. If Divine Faith give us a Certainty without objective Evidence then it is miraculous or contrary to nature or at least above it not only as rectifying disabled nature which I grant but as moving man not as man or the Intellect not as an Intellect which knows naturally no other Action but upon fit objects and what is wrought by them It knoweth no apprehension of truth but as it is apparent or evidenced truth To understand this Axiom to be true All men shall be Judged and to see no Evidence of its truth are contradictions 3. At lest it cannot be concluded in general that the objects of Faith are not evident to any in that they were evident not only to the Prophets and Apostles themselves but to all the Churches in that age where they wrought their miracles For as the formale fidei objectum viz. Veracitas Revelantis is evident to Nature and so to all that have not lost reason so that God himself was the Author or Revealer was evident to all them whose eyes and ears were witnesses of the frequent Miracles Languages and Gifts of the Spirit whereby the truth was then sealed by God 4. That which hath no Evidence cannot be Rationally preached to the world But the Doctrine of Faith may be Rationally preached to the world therefore Preaching hath a natural tendency to mens Conversion It is a shewing men the Evidence of Gospel Truth and the goodness of Gospel objects and so thereby perswading men to Believe the one and Love and Accept the other He that doth not praedicare Evidentiam veritatis Evangelicae doth not preach the Gospel in the first respect as he that preacheth not the goodness of Christ and his benefits doth not preach it in the other Preaching is not like Christs laying on clay and spittle which hath no natural tendency to open the eyes For the effect of Preaching as such is not miraculous no nor supernaturally otherwise then as the Doctrine preached being of supernatural Revelation may be said to be a supernatural Cause and so relatively the effect called supernatural though the same effect as proceeding from the Spirit which is a Concause or superior Cause may be truly called supernatural 5. That which may be discerned to be certain Truth without special or extraordinary Grace even by wicked men and Divels hath some evidence which causeth this discerning or belief