Service If a man take a woman in Marriage and estate her in all his Lands on condition that she will be to him a chast faithfull Wife here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition as to be his Wife So if God say He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved and he that hath not shall perish Here as faith is the principall part of the condition so that it be a Working is the secondary and as real a part of the condition as that it be faith And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving at Judgement you must be justified by producing your faith it self so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith 5. As for your single Argument here I answer 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by Works means not Works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture Others may see it and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words though you or I could not If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text we shall presume to make so great an alteration meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily q. d. And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled i e. historically spoke truly of that which was long before done Abraham beleeved God i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience and it i. e. beleeving and so obeying or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death was imputed to him c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection knowing that this would be objected he might say q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled which saith c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only yet when he was called to works he was justified also by his obedience 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation according to your exposition as mine For you may as well say How do these accord He was justified by a working faith and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith He was justified by faith For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith and yet this is it the Text speaks but that he was justified by works seconding faith or as you say by a working-Working-faith Where if you put any emphasis on the term Working and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving you say as much as I and then James must cite that Text expositorily and then whether according to my exposition or yours varies not the case seeing one saith as much for Works as the other But I suppose you will say Faith which justifieth must be working but it justifieth not qua operans Ans 1. True nor qua fides i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working If you say Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification that we beleeve with a working faith and so that it be working is part of the Condition you say the same in sense as I. If you say either that working is necessary as a sign that faith is true or that the nature of true faith will work both are truth but to say this is the Apostle's sense is to null all his Argumentation For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem even that Justification which he cals Impuâ—ing of Righteousness and that by God And he argueth not only Physically what the nature of faith will produce but morally what men must do to such ends And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term Works signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and so its true Or it signifieth all good actions and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works If you say But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works I easily grant it That they be Good floweth from the Precept That they Justifie floweth from the Promise constituting them the Condition If they should justifie because Good their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousnessâ— But yet they must be Good before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness consisting in their aptitude to this work and to Glorifie the free Justifier Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture look not with such a face as your Proposition This may serve to your following words §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifieth us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtle a Notion We use to speak otherwise of faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not â—ight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 18.26 Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a righteousness which faith receives Christ dwels in us by faith Eph. 3.17 By faith we take him in and give him entertainment We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gal. 3.14 These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies but some body will be sorry
to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one Whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What faith justifieth Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as
evil without the co-working or instrumentality of faith But these are beside the point 5. When you have laid down one Proposition Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Concedo totum Is that your Conclusion Would you have no more Who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justifie man unless his faith be the instrument of it And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself when you say Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God No nor with him neither For none can forgive sins but God only even to another but who can forgive himself Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself for I did not beleeve it 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall efficient causation of our faith Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved and not barely affirmed §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of Agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an Article of his faith 1. What you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate unless that which is never a principall 2. Nor know I whether by sole you mean Materialiter Formaliter vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument Here the instrument is but one though the matter of it may be of divers parts Sure this is not your sense that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument 2. An instrument may be called sole formally when it it is the only instrument and there is no other concurreth to the effect If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments then it is more nakedly then truly asserted nor do they hold ever the more or less whether the instrument be sole or not else they would hold against few instruments in the world For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument especially of subordinate instruments though it may be usual as to coordinate 3. An instrument may be called sole Respectivè as to the principal cause viz. It is not the instrument of many principals but of one only Is this your meaning that my exceptions would hold if faith were only mans instrument or only Gods but not when it is both If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof or reason why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal as of a single surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that 2. If God and man be both principals as they must be if faith be the instrument of both then either coordinate or subordinate but neither of these as I have argued before Man neither forgives himself under God or with God if you speak of one and the same forgiveness Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness whereby a man may forgive himself whereof Seneca speaks de Ira when he saith Why should I fear any of my Errors when I can say See thou do so no more I now forgive thee lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations that here is such a concurrence of Agents that God makes use of the act of man to produce the effect of Remission and that as an instrument and not only as a meer condition fine qua non §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of Justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification You here come more short of satisfying me against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument You say This indeed is Gods not mans I say There is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum You say It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification I answer 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification as to humble to give faith to Regenerate c. But that 's nothing to our business 2. But as to the act of Justification or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousness I say It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability 3. If you should mean that of it self i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition it is not able I answer that 's not fitly called disability Or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coâ—fficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition were performed §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slayes not nor an ax an instrument to hâ—w when it cuts not Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification where it justifies not §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words I know you had not leasure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified Do you think I know not a Cause and
Honour or of the Prince as one to honour him that is the sole condition of his Honour Nor is it accepting of Riches that is the sole condition of enriching him But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom that is the Condition of all together and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit as another Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman and the Prince having Ransomed her doth send this offer to her That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince to love honour and obey him he will deliver her and make her his Queen and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches Here now if the Question be What it is on his part that Redeemed her What that Delivered her What that honoured her What that enriched her each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause and the causes not confounded And she must distinctly apprehend by what way and cause each priviledge comes But if you ask only What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits Why it is but one entire undivided Condition before mentioned Will you here subtilly distinguish and say that her taking him to deliver her is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance and her taking him to Dignifie her is the sole condition of her Dignity and her taking him as Rich or to enrich her is the sole condition of her enriching No It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches that is the sole condition of enriching her Yet if any should in one Question include both What on his part did save her from death and what on her part then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text in our case It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer I should wrong you by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness if I should spend words in application of this to our case Having been so much too tedious already I will only adde That the common doctrine in this Point requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit and so one act of faith Justifieth another Adopteth c. And that act which receiveth Justification which they call the Passive instrument thereof in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam And so with them Credere Justificari must be Synonimall termes For so to receive Justification is nothing but to be Justified §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideon or Sampsons valour that were their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-tapt them and yet he was not thereby Justified as 1 Cor. 4.4 §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith An act of Justification If you speak properly you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè either that some act of faith is an act of Justification as the efficient but that 's farre from truth to beleeve and to justifie differ or else that it is an act constituting Justification But that is as far from truth for then Credere should be Justificari If you speak improperly you must mean either An act effecting Justification as it seems you do which is unsound as well as improper or else An act which is the Condition of Justification which is sound though improper 2. Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of Justification or not all of them The proper importance of your words is for the former But that is a dangerous untruth for vers 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith they saw the promises i. e. the good promised a farre off and were perswaded of them and embraced them c. But which soever you mean you should have proved your assertion It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification as begun But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification I do not think but that act by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification though it were the preparing the Ark being moved with fear I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous and that by which Enoch pleased God and without which it is impossible to please him had some hand in Justification I think these four great acts mentioned v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification 1. To beleeve that God is viz. that he is God the Chief Good the first and last the principal efficient and Ultimate End c. 2. The diligent seeking of him 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so 4. Coming to him If this be distinct from the second When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth from his praises 3. Yet you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideons valour acts of Justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith its true Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts and so you mean not the obedience valour c. but the act of faith which excited it then you might call those acts of justifying faith But if I had called valour and obedience so I should have been blamed 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification Do you think that any act of faith is Justification You mean if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine the instrument of Justification 5. But then how come you to say next that it is Christs blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which improperly may be called also the Matter of it But I think it is neither our Justification formally nor the instrument of it in proper speech 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been Which is the justifying act of faith and which not and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11.
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
Effect are so related that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect Though it may still be the same Thing and have the same Aptitude to produce the Effect even when it is not applied and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cause still 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument except you would arguâ— thus The grant of the Covenant is not an Instrument of justifying unbelievers that never were justified Therefore it is not a full or proper instrument of justifying believers that are justified Or else therefore faith is an instrument as well as the Gospel To your Reader that is no wiser then I these words therefore are at the best but lost labour For I suppose this Argumentation you will not own §. 16. Mr Bl. WHen the Minister is a Minister of condemnation the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death §. 16. R. B. 1. SO it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of Justification Saw you not this when you wrote it §. 17. Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Gospel for Justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred §. 17. R. B. DArkly but dangerouslly spoken Darkly for its possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine quâ homo non est subjectum proximè capax and so I grant the sense dangerously For the words will seem to any impartial Reader to import more specially finding what you say for faiths instrumentality before viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel which if you mean I would for the Truth 's sake and your own that these words had never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause-instrumentall coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate 2. If it were the former that is meant yet were it intollerable 1. Nothing but a superiour cause doth convey efficaciam causandi to another And this must be either 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris 2. Vel in actum To say that mans faith doth either of these to the Gospel-grant is such a doctrine as I will not dare to argue against left you take me thereby to accuse you of being guilty of it 2. Faith cannot as a concause convey any efficacy into the Gospel For a co-ordinate concause doth influere immediatè in ipsum effectum at non in concausae potentiam vel actum 3. If you had only said that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gospel to Justification you had said more then you bring any proof for But let 's see what you bring in stead of proof §. 18. Mr Bl. HEb 4.2 Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it 1 Thes 2.12 13. You received not the Word of God as the word of men but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh in you that believe §. 18. R. B. BUt where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your Cause 1. In the first Text the Apostle speaks of the words profiting in the real change of the soul and our question is of the Relative The Scripture meaneth The word had not that further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie them 2. It s true that the Word did not justifie them but that 's consequential only of the former unprofitableness Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions and then you do something 3. Is here ever a word for the Gospels receiving its efficacy to Justification by faith no nor of its so receiving that real profit of sanctification which is here meant neither It s weak arguing to say The Word profited not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying You cannot but know the sequel would be denied In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this much less to Justification where faith is no efficient For concauses have not influence on each other but both on the effect The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the soul which presupposeth faith for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation and that 's all that the Text saith But may not the absence of faith hinder unless when present it doth effect I am sure in Justification where it is but a condition it may The nature of a condition when the gift is free and full is not to effect the thing but to suspend the efficacy of the instrument till it be performed As if I may use so gross a similitude the clicket of a Cross-bow doth hinder the â—ow from shooting till you stir it but doth not adde any force to it when you do stir it The second Text I know not how you mean to make use of unless you argue thus The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of Justification §. 19. Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much less say that the Word hath such an influx §. 19. R. B. THe Gospel in it self considered without the coordinate or subordinate or superiour causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it Much less should prefer the causality of faith in saying that we may much less give this honour to the Word or say this of the Word then of our own faith Yet the Gospel without the concomitancy of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non But that is no dishonour to the Gospel nor defect of power which faith must supply But the force of the instrument being meerly from the Donors will he willeth
not as a Redeemer by ransom or as one that is to justifie us but not to Sanctifie or Rule us each of these is true in suo genere but false if they pretend to be that which Scripture calls Faith in Christ and which denominateth Believers So is it to believe with the understanding speculatively and superficially and yet to Dissent with the will I think if a man say This is the Son the heir come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man Reign over us that these are not true Believers nor have right to Baptism though their belief that he is the heir be a Dogmatical Faith true in its kinde 2. As Amesius Medulla li. 1. cap. 3. § 20. Quamvis in Scripturis aliquando Assensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Jesu Christi vel per assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam And as words of Knowledge and Assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent so on the contrary words of consent and affection do alwaies imply Knowledge and Assent And therefore Faith is sometime denominated from the Intellectual act Believing and sometime from the Wills act Receiving 3. Do you not know how ordinarily even saving Faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual Act alone when yet you 'l confess the Will is necessarily an Agent in this many texts might quickly be cited to that end Those that Amesius citeth may suffice Joh. 11.25 26 27. He that believeth in me shall live Believest thou this yea Lord I believe that thou art that Christ the Son of God that was to come into the world Such was Nathaniels faith Joh. 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and be in God And 1 Joh. 5.1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God Here is more then Right to Baptism The great doubt was then whether Christ were the true Messiah and therefore this was the greatest and most difficult part of Faith to Assent to this and therefore the whole is denominated from it it being supposed when they believed him to be the only sufficient and faithful Physitian that they were willing to be healed by him in his way 4. If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of Justifying Faith you do not lightly err Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the Regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Math. 13. The word hath not rooting in him Doubtless whether or no the Practical understanding do unavoidably determine the Will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the Will unsanctified which must be said if the Dogmatical Faith that is the Intellectual Assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true Believer Dr. Downam in his Treatise of Justification and against Mr. Pemble hath said enough of this to which I refer you I take that answer as equal to silence which yet Mr. Bl. so highly values as to say It will take away all scruple §. 52. HAving Replyed to your Answer I shall be bold to trouble you with some more Arguments to this point Mr. Blake affirmeth that Justifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptism engageth and therefore not prerequisite to Baptism and that an acknowledgment of the Necessity of such Faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the Seal and so it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptism in which Baptism we must engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter Against this Doctrine I argue 1. From Authority beginning with the lowest Argument The Reverend Assembly in their Advice for Church Government Printed after the Directory pag. 58. of the Church say thus Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Visible Saints viz. of such as being of Age professed faith in Christ and obedience unto Christ according to the Rule of Faith and Life taught by Christ and his Apostles and of their children and they cite Act. 2 â—8 41 last compared with Act. 5.14 1 Cor. 1.2 compared with 2 Cor. 9.13 Now if the Profession of this Saint-ship in Faith and obedience according to the Rule were necessary then the profession of Justifying Faith was necessary For this is justifying Faith without doubt And if so then it is not a Faith short of this which is the condition of Church member-ship for then the profession of that other imperfect Faith might suffice of which more anon See also the Assemblies Confession cap. 28. § 1.6 and the two Catechisms of Baptism where 1. observe the ends of Baptism that it Sealeth Remission Regeneration Adoption c. 2. the subject that none are to be Baptized at age till they profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him Which if they do sincerely no doubt that Faith is no less then justifying See also what that truly Iudicious Learned Reverend Divine Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward viz. against those words which I confuted not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with in Mr. Gatakers Desceptatio de Baptismatis Infantilis vi efficaciâ— pag. 71. where he also cites Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker c. and therefore I will cite no more Mr. Marshal in his late Sermon for Unity I mentioned before A hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose Argu. 2. My Second Argument shall be from the Testimony and Practice of the purest Antiquity 1 Justin Martyr in his second Apologie relating the Churches custom in Baptizing saith As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach and do promise to live according to them they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins our selves also joyning our prayer and fasting Then they are brought to the water and born again in the same way as we our selves were born again So for the other Sacrament he addeth This food we call the Eucharist to which no man is admitted but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sin and that so liveth as Christ hath taught 2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. shews that Abrahams Faith by which he was justified is the same with the Christian Faith yea with that whereby we begin to be saved And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptismal Covenant wherein men deliver up themselves to Christ he saith Si igitur tradideris ei quod
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