p. 40 Whether the Law of Grace condemn any and how p. 44 45 The Distinction of sides quae justificat quâ justificat considered p. 46 c. MR. Blak's first Argument answered p. 53 Argument 2. answered p. 55 Argument 3. p. 57 Argument 4. p. 63 Argument 5. and 6. p. 64 Disputation 2. Quest WHether works are a condition of condition of Justification and so whether we are justified by works as such a condition The terms Works and Justification explained p. 70 71 The Term Condition explained p. 72 The Truth laid down in several Propositions p. 75 Negative and Affirmative The main Proposition proved p. 79 c. Quest Can Christ be Instrumental in justifying p. 84 Quest Did Christ expiate the sins that by the Gospel men are obliged to punishment for p. 86 Of Repentance and the habit of Faith in Justification p. 85 86 Quest Doth the Gospel justifie us p. 86 87 88 89 Other points briefly discussed p. 90 The Opponents stating of the Question p. 94 95 96 Divers unjust charges repelled p. 97 to 101 The Opponents Thesis and Arguments p. 101 102 How Abraham was justified debated to p. 110 All works make not the Reward to be not of Grace proved by six Arguments p. 111 to 115. And by Expositors p. 115 c. His second Argument from the difference put between faith and other Graces in Justification p. 118 The case of faiths Interest opened by a similitude p. 120 His third Argument considered Our first Justification how different from the following p. 122 123 His fourth Argument of self Righteousness and causal conditions p. 124 c. His Fifth Argument Works are the fruits therefore not the condition p. 128 His sixth Argument p. 132 His seventh Argument Of a twofold Righteousness or Justification p. 133 His eight Argument that cannot be a condition of Justification which it self needeth Justification p. 136 Answered Paul judgeth them dung p. 140 How justifying faith belongs to the Law and the difference between the Law and Gospel p. 142 More of Christs suffering for the violation of the new Covenant p. 146 His ninth Argument we fill men with doubts p. 147 Answered His tenth Argument p. 149 Of the reconciling of Paul and James p. 150. c. Letters that past between this Reverend Brother and me p. 157 In which is discussed the Argument from Abrahams Justification And in the last Letter these questions 1. Whether videre audire be only Grammatical actions and Physical Passions p. 194 c. 2. Whether Believing be only so and credere only pati p. 198 3. Whether Faith be passive in its Instrumentality p. 207 4. Whether the Opponents way make not other Graces as proper Instruments of Justification p. 211 5. Whether Faith be a proper Instrument of Justification p. 212 6. Question If Faith be an Instrument whether it justifie primarily and proxime as such or as an apprehension of Christ or Righteousness p. 214 7. Question which is the more clear safe and certain Doctrine p. 220 Repentance whether excluded p. 227 Of Faith relatively taken p. 228 Of the Assemblies Definition of faith p. 230 The Judgement of some Divines p. 233 c. whether a dying man may look on his own Acts as the Conditions of the Covenant performed p. 241 c. Further Explications p. 244. c. Disputation 3. Quest WHether Besides the Righteousness of Christ imputed there be a personal evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salvation Affir p. 259 Distinctions and Propositions Negative and Affirmative for explication p. 260 c. Proved p. 266 Objections answered p. 269 c. Mr. Warner's Arguments confuted p. 273 to 285 Mr. Warner's 13th chap. confuted about Justistcation and the Interest of Obedience c p. 286 Master Warner's Arguments answered by which he would exclude Christ as King c. from being the Object of justifying faith p. 293. c. The other chief passages in his Book considered p. 305 c. His distinction of fides quae qua p. 308 c. His Preface answered in an Epistle p. 313 MR. John Tombe's his friendly Animadversions on my Aphorisms with a Discussion of them p. 322 Justification in Law-title by the Promise fully vindicated p. 332 c. Whether Justification be a continued Act or but one Act. p. 341 c. Whether Faith comprize Love Subjection or other Graces at large p. 345 c. Whether Faith be only in the Intellect or also in the Will p. 354 c. Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as Lord c. p. 358 It is Faith and not only Love or other Graces by which the Will receiveth Christ p. 361. c. The Gospel is a Law p. 369 c. Repentance necessary to Justification p. 370 c. How Faith justifieth p. 377 Whether Christ had a Title on Earth to Rule p. 379 Of Christs universal Dominion and Redemption p. 380 More of the Justification by the Gospel-Promise p. 384 Of Preparatives to Justification p. 387 What Paul excludeth as opposite to faith in Justification p. 391 392 Of Intercision of Justification and the guilt of particular sins p. 393 c. Disputation 4. Quest WHether the Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification be one only Physical Act of the Soul Or Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of Faith be the works which Paul excludeth from Justification Neg. p. 399 The Question opened and it s proved that this Faith is not one only Act. 1. Either Numerically 2. Or of an inferior Genus so as to be of one only Faculty Nor only God the Father Christ Promise Pardon Heaven c. the Object 3. Nor in specie specielissima proved by many Arguments ERRATA PAge 6. line 23. read that 1. p. 13. l. 10. r. quae Christum p. 14. l. 9. r. promitentis I. 22. r. hath p. 18. l. 3. r. as this l. 34. r. proof of p. 19. â— 24. r. be the. l. 34. r. â— p. 21. l. 17. r. that be is p. 24. l. 35. r. thus p. 29. l. 13. r. though p. 32. l. 32 r. must be p. 39. l. 6. r. with p. 44. l. 1. r. I need p. 45. l. 30. r. Commination P. â—2 l. 11. r. as p. 55. l 26. r. nostri l. 32. r. exclusion p. 64. l. 30. r. Curse p. 74. l. 8. r. capitibus p. 81. l. 13. r. no. l. 20. r. All. p. 85. l. 6. blot out against p. 87. l. 22. r. that is l. 21. r. execution p. 88. l. 12. read there p. 94. l. 10. r. notion p. 95. l. 3. r. u. l. 9. r. your p. 99. l. 19 r. as mediate it p. 119. l. 36. r. as p. 135. â— 5. r. that he hath not p. 136. l. 18. r. Christ p. 139. l. 13. r. a means page 152. l. 17. r. been p. 166. l. 38. r. we may p. 168. r. Gods p. 170 l. 17. r signs p. 175. l. 15. r. divers p. 178. l. 19. r. be that works not p. 180.
explicatory Propositions I Come now to prove the sum of the Affirmative Proposition together so far as they resolve the Question in hand viz. that works or acts of man have such an Interest in our Justificaon and are so far conditions as is here asserted My first proof is from those Texts of Scripture which expresly speak of Justification by such acts or works If we are justified By our words and works then are they no less then conditions of Justification But we are justified By them Ergo. c. The Consequence of the Major is plain first In that the Preposition By doth signifie no less then the Interest of some means but these Works can be no means but either a condition or a cause which is more A cause the persons that now I deal with will not affirm them to be If they do then they ascribe much more to them then to be a condition Secondly The Interest of faith it self is expressed by no higher terms then By that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is the Interest of these other acts The Minor is express 1. Mat. 12.36 37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is at the day of Judgement in the great Justification 2. Jam. 2.24 ye see then how that By Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man is justified and not by faith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This speaks of Justification in this life When men argue against Justification by our words or works I desire 1. to understand whether it be the words or the sense that they argue against If the words then it is either against the use of them simply as being false or unmeet or else against unseasonable use of them For the former they have no ground for you see it is the express language of Christ himself and his Apostle And as to the later I easily grant that no Scripture phrase should be unseasonably used But if it be not the words but the sense that they blame why then do they harp so much on the words themselves and raise the most of the odium from thence And what is the unwarrantable sense I know not of any lower sense that they can put on these words then what importeth the Interest of a condition As for that of Mat. 12. they say little to it And as to that of James they interpret it differently among themselves First Some of them say that James speaks of Justification before men and others say he speaks of Justification before God The former are easily confuted as they restrain the text to that alone by the express words of the Text. For first ver 23. it expresly speaks of Righteousness by divine Imputation and of Gods accepting Abraham into friendship Secondly The text speaks of that Justification which concurreth with Salvation ver 14. can faith save him Thirdly It speaks of the Death of faith without works as to Profiting ver 16.17 which is different from manifestation Fourthly It instanceth in the secret act of Rahab and such an act of Abraham as we read of no men that then justified him for nay they were liker to condemn him Fifthly Men may justifie an Hypocrite as soon as the truly godly and can but conjecture at the faith by the works But the scope of the text shews that it is no such frivolous justification that is here meant Secondly They that say that it is justification before God that is here meant as no doubt it is have yet divers interpretations of the word Works Some say that by Works is not meant Works themselves indeed but a working faith To them I say first I deny it and wait for better proof then is yet brought Secondly The text nameth works expresly twelve times in a few verses which is not usual in speeches so tropicall as this is supposed to be Thirdly In many or most of the texts that interpretation would make the words non-sense as the perusall will declare Fourthly If the word works did emphatically signifie the working nature of faith or faith not qua fides but qua operans it will be all one as to the matter in question and yield what I desire Others say that by works is indeed meant the works themselves properly but then they say that the text speaks not of the Justification of the person by them but of faith by them for faith say they alone doth justifie the person and works only justifie faith Answer But first this contradicteth the express text for verse 14. It is the Salvation of the person that is denyed and ver 21. It it the justification of Abraham himself that is there mentioned and ver 24. it is the man that is said to be justified by works and not by faith only and verse 25. it is Rahab her self that is said to be justified by works Secondly The answer contradicteth themselves or granteth what I desire for if works justifie the faith they must needs justifie the person in tantum against any accusation of gross Infidelity and Hypocrisie Sometime the person is justified when his Action cannot be justified as in case of satisfaction and pardon but to justifie the action it self is the highest sort of justifying the person So that all other Interpretations being either overthrown or resolved into that which we maintain I need to say to more for the defending of it My next proof is from those texts that say we shall be Judged according to our works and rewarded according to our Labour c. 2 Cor. 5.9 10. 1 Cor. 3.8 1 Pet. 1.16 17. Matthew 16.27 c. If men shall be justified according to their works then those works are no lower then a condition of that justification But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus If men shall be judged according to their works therefore they shall be justified according to their works The reason of the Consequence is evident because judging is the Genus which comprehendeth Justification and condemnation as its species The reason also of the consequence of the former Argument is apparent because the term of judging according to works doth in the common use of men signifie ordinarily that which they call the Meritum causae but never any thing lower then a bare condition nor can any lower tolerable judiciary sense be put upon them as might easily be shewed if it were worth the standing on My next proof is from those texts that expresly promise the pardon of sin on condition of Repentance Confession c. If Repentance and other acts are made by the Gospel conditions of pardon and our first general Pardon then are they made conditions of our first admission into a state of Justification But the Antecedent is plain in Act. 2.38 Mar. 14. Luke 13.35 Isa 55.67 and 1.16 17 18. Ezek. 33.11 16. and 18.28 29 30 31 32. Prov.
putting us into a justified state And its works under any notion that you speak of and not only under the reduplication quà works Treat p. 221. First I shall instance in the great pattern and example of our Justification Abraham from whom the Apostle concludeth a Justification of all Believers in the like manner he was Now that Abraham was not Iustified by works or his working though a godly man the Apostle c. Answ 1. I distinguish between works in Pauls sense and works in Iames his sense And because you say so much against distinguishing of works before as deceitful I will first prove the necessity of distinguishing 1. Works in Pauls sense are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Works in Iames his sense are not such therefore they are not the same Works in Pauls sense are actions as valuable offered to God and justifying by their value But works in Iames his sense are none such Proved The works that James speaks of must necessarily be done Works in Pauls sense we may not so much as imagine that we can do viz. such as make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace Though the matter of such works may be done which Justiciaries thus conceive of yet under such a notion no man may once imagine that he hath them 2. Works in Pauls sense are such as stand in competition with Christ or at least would be co-partners with him in a co-ordination But works in James his sense are none such but such as stand in a due subordination to Christ such undoubtedly there are And such James speaks of That Paul speaks of works as Competitors with Christ or as co-ordinate an hundred Texts will prove and the case is so plain that I think it not worth the insisting on seeing the impartial reading over the Epistles may satisfie 2. I distinguish of Justifying quoad modum procurandi or of the distinct Interests of mens actions therein signified in the preposition By. Paul speaks of Justification By works as by valuable deserving causes or procatarctike causes moving God to justifie us by their worth or by some true causality procuring it But Iames speaks of Works as supposing the perfect Satisfaction and Merit of Christ and that all that is valuable to the causal procurement of our Justification is to be found in him alone and therefore he leaves no causality herein to works but takes them as a meer condition which cease suspending when performed For the efficiency of a condition is only in suspending till performed And so Rebellion can suspend when the ceasing of that Rebellion by obedience doth not cause but only cease suspending Now I answer to your Minor that Abraham was not justified by works in Pauls sense but he was in Iames's sense unless you will own the saying which you chide Althamer for Though I must say that in his Conciliationes Loc. Script Althamer deals more mannerly with Iames. Abraham was not justified by works as making the Reward of debt and not of grace for he had no such works But Abraham was justified 1. By the act of faith as a condition therefore by an act under some notion I know of few Divines that deny that faith is a condition of Justification 2. However you confess your self that Abraham was Justified by faith as an instrument and you say that it was by the act of faith and not the habit And though you take this to be but a nominal act and really a Passion yet so do not others for herein you are more singular a thousand to one as far as I am able to understand then I am in the Doctrine which you charge with singularity 3. The faith that Abraham was justified by was not only a bare apprehension of Christs Righteousness but a receiving of Christ as Christ which is called Works by your party 4. It was either By or Because of his External Obedience that Abraham was justified Proved 1 By Iames 2.21 Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the Altar 2. From Gen. 22.12 16 18. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing and hast not with-held thy son thine only son that in blessing I will bless thee c. And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice But then I must add that this was none of Abrahams first Justification for he was just before this but it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God and a kind of sentential Declaration thereof by the voice of the Angel But a Justification it was and so James calls it Now let us hear your Replies Treat pag. 221. This cannot be a solid Answer 1. Because the Apostle speaketh generally of works in this description of Iustification though in other places he sometimes saith the works of the Law yet Abraham could not be Instanced in for such works c. When we read the Holy Ghost spake generally of all works who are we that we should limits it to some By their interpretation the believer should be opposed only to some kind of works and faith c. Answ 1. The ordinary strain of the Apostles speech being expressive of the works of the Law is Expository of the rest 1. Because a few passages must be usually expounded by many 2. And because a few much more abundance of limiting passages must expound those where the restriction is not expressed 2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Justifying as works but it follows not that therefore they are as you may say excluded under any Notion whatsoever 3. And why might not Abraham be instanced in Your proof is none 1. Is it not a good Argument Negative Abraham was not justified by works therefore we are not And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent Because he had no works that could justifie No nor those which were then trusted on to Justification 2. Doth not Paul shew that he speaks of these when he proves his assertion 1. Because Abraham was then in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 what 's that to Gospel obedience 2. Because the Law was long after the promise and was not then given Gal. 3.17 3. Paul maketh it all one to be justified by works and to be justified by the Law as abundance of passages shew A multitude of particular Texts do expresly shew that it is a Legal Iustification only that he speaks of and that he directly intendeth only Legal works I will now instance but in one viz. Rom. 4.13 compared with Gen. 22.18 For the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham and his seed by the Law but through the righteousness of faith Now compare with this the words of the promise it self And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice So ver
Law therein your self Whether you will read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am indifferent being no friend to either I thought it a greater novelty to say Faith justifieth only or primarily as an Instrument then to say it justifieth as the Condition which the free Lawgiver hath promised Justification upon I knew it was no novelty to say we must have a personal Righteousness besides that imputed And I took it to be as old as the Gospel to say that this consisteth in Faith and sincere Obedience I called it Evangelical because I trembled to think of having an inherent Righteousness which the Law of works will so denominate What you say of the Efficacy of Obedience and Faith I disclaim both as never coming into my thoughts I acknowledge no efficiency as to Justification in either but a bare conditionality I aver confidently that I give no more to works then our Divines ordinarily do viz. to be a secondary part of the Condition of the new Covenant and so of Justification as continued and consummate and of Glorification only if I err it is in giving less to Faith denying it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification but only a condition My Definition of Faith is the same in sense with Dr. Prestons Mr. Calverwell Mr. Throgmorton Mr. Norton of new England in his Catechism c. O how it grieveth me to dissent from my Reverend Brethen Some report it to be a pernitious Book others overvalue it and so may receive the more hunt if it be unsound Truly Sir I am little prejudiced against your Arguments But had rather return into the common road then not if I could see the Light of truth to guide me I abhor affected singularity in Doctrine therefore I intreat you again to defer no longer to vouchsafe me the fruit of one hours labour which I think I may claim from your Charity and the Interest God hath given one member in another and you shall hereby very much oblige to thankfulness Jan. 22. 1649. Your unworthy fellow-servant Richard BAXTER To my Reverend and very much valued friend Mr. Preacher of Gods Word at These present Dear Sir I Received your letter and I returned some Answer by Mr. Bryan viz. that now the daies growing longer and warmer I shall be glad to take occasion to confer with you mouth to mouth about those things wherein we differ for I conceive that to be a far more compendious way then by letters wherein any mistake is not so easily rectified I shall therefore be ready to give you the meeting at Bremicham any Thursday you shall appoint that may be convenient with your health that so by an amicable collation we may find out the truth In the mean while I shall not wholly neglect your request in your letter but give you an hint at one of those several Arguments that move me to dissent from you which although it be obvious yet such Arguments as most men pitch upon have the greatest strength and that is the peculiar and proper expressions the Scripture giveth to faith in the matter of Justification and that when the Doctrine is purposely handled as Paul in his Epistle to the Romans attributing it so to faith as it excludes not the presence but the co-operation of any other He doth so include faith as that he doth exclude all works under any notion for Abraham was then godly and abounded in other Graces yet the Apostle fastens his Justification upon this in so much that if a man would have desired the Apostle to make a difference between faith and other Graces it could not have been done more evidently As for the Apostle James your sence cannot be admitted to reconcile them but rather makes that breach wider the one saith a Justification without works you make Faith as well as works though one primarily whereas the Orthodox both against Papists and Arminians and Socinians do sweetly reconcile them By the hint of this I see a Letter cannot represent the vigor of an Argument I shall only add one thing we may hold Opinions and dispute them speculatively in Books but practically and when we come to dye we dare not make use of them I know not how a godly man at his death can look upon his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him though the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ be acknowledged the procuring cause The Papists also verbally come to that refuge For how come the Imperfections in the Conditions to be pardoned and conditions have a moral Efficiency Raptim But of these things more fully when I see you The Lord preserve you an Instrument in his Church and direct and sanctifie all your parts and abilities for his Glory Feb. 13. Your loving Brother in the Lord To his very loving and much respected Friend Mr. BAXTER Minister of Gods Word at Kederminster these be delivered Sir FOr the expressions of your love in your two Letters and your offer to meet me for conference I return you hearty thanks But I told you of my weakness which is so great that I am not able to travel nor to discourse to any purpose if I were with you a few words do so spend me except when I have a little ease which fals out perhaps once in a moneth for a few hours unexpected therefore I am resolved to importune you once again and if you now deny me to cease my suit It is expected at London Cambridge c. that you write a confutation and you intimate your purpose to do so hereafter which I will not disswade you from so I might but see your Arguments that before I dye I might know whether I have erred and not dye without repenting or recanting and if I err not that I might shew you my grounds more fully And if you deny this request to one that hath so even unmannerly importuned you and yet purpose to do it when I can neither be the better for it nor defend my self you walk not by that Rule as I thought you did nor do as you would be done by But for my part I have done my endeavour for information and so have satisfied my own conscience For what should I do There is none in this Country that will attempt a convincing of me by word or writing nor for ought I hear gainsay and you are the nearest from whom I may hope for it In your last you overpass all the particulars almost touched in your former and pitch on Justification by works Where you mention Pauls attributing it to Faith to which I have answered and have no Reply 1. Where you say Paul excludes the Co-operation of any other I answer So do I. And of Faith too I deny the operations as effective 2. When you say he excludes works under any notion I answer 1. Would I could see that proved 2. Then how can James say true 3. Then he excludes faith under the notion of an
Instrument 4. And Repentance under the notion of a preparative or condition 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation or efficiency of works I yield as before 6. Paul expresly excludes only the works of the Law that is such as are considered in opposition to Christ or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works and not such as Christ himself enjoyneth in subordination to himself so they keep that place of subordination 7. Pauls Question is What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law And this he saith is no Works under any notion no not Faith but only Christs Righteousness and so faith must be taken relatively for certainly it is Christ and not Faith that is that Righteousness Is not this all that our Divines say or require and so say I over and over But Paul doth not resolve there what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his so directly but collaterally 8. Or if you say he do yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification I say it is without not only the operation but the presence of works which is more then you say 9. Or whether he speak of begun or continued Justification I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward as of debt and not of Grace As a man that works to yearn wages as Paul plainly saith Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace but of Debt These works I disclaim as sinfull in their ends But obeying the Gospel or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us should rule over us and running that we obtain and fighting the good fight of faith and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him and improving our Talent and enduring to the end and so doing good works and laying up a good foundation against the time to come I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement or the continuance of it here Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls sense as before but not works in this sense or in James his sense When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better and answered what I have said in that 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force For first you say the one saith a Justification by faith without works you make Faith as well as works c. Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works but without the works of the Law And I have shewed you what he means by works Rom. 4.4 2. I say no more then James that a man is justified by works and not by faith only I believe both these Scriptures are true and need no reconciling as having no contradiction in the terms And yet I speak not so broad usually as James doth Where you say that the Orthodox do sweetly reconcile them I know not who you mean by the Orthodox For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them Piscator and Pemble have one Interpretation and way of Reconciliation Calvin Paraeus and most Divines another Camero confuteth the best esteemed and hath another Brochmond with most of the Lutherans have another Jac. Laurentius Althemor and many more tell us of divers which of these you mean by the Orthodox I know not But if you exclude all those from the Orthodox that say as I say in this you will exclude as Learned Divines and well reputed of as most Europe hath bred viz. excellent Conrad Bergius Ludov. Crecius Johan Crocius Johan Bergius c. Who though they all dispute for Justification by faith without works understanding it of the first Justification for most Divines have taken Justification to be rigidly simul semel till Dr. Downam evinced that it is a continued Act yet they both take works for meriting works that respect the reward as of Debt and they say that otherwise Obedience is a Condition or cause as they make it of continuing or not losing Justification once attained And is not that to say as much as I And many more I can name you that say as much And you approve of Mr. Bals book which saith that works or a purpose to walk with God do justifie as a passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification You add that we may dispute c. but you know not how a godly man at his death can look on his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him c. Which speech seems strange to me I confess if I be so I am ungodly For I have been as oft and as long in the expectation of death as most men and still am and yet I am so far from being afraid of this that I should live and dye in horror and desperation if I could not look upon the conditions of the Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my self through goes workings If by our Graces you mean Habits I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant For what you say of the Papists you know how fundamentally almost they differ from me in this confounding the Covenants Righteousness c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my self I would shew wherein For your question How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned You know I have fully answered it both in the Aphorisms and Appendix And I would rather you had given me one discovery of the insufficiency of that answer then asked the Question again Briefly thus Guilt is an obligation to punishment as it is here to be understood Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation or Guilt and Punishment All Punishment is due by some Law According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience c. deserve punishment and Christ hath satisfied that Law and procured forgiveness of these imperfections and so acquit us from Guilt and punishment The new Law or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers and so not to the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience where they are sincere And where the Law threatneth not Punishment there is no obligation to Punishment or Guilt on the party from that Law and so no work for Pardon Imperfect believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly and it condemneth none for imperfection of degree where there is sincerity No man is ever pardoned whom the new Law condemneth that is final Unbelievers or Rejecters of Christ So that Christ removeth or forgiveth that obligation to punishment which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfections And for the Law of Grace where it obligeth not
and not the hundreth line or word to press them to Trust that he will pardon and save them All the powerfull Perachers that ever I heard however they dispute yet when they are preaching to the generality of people they zealously cry down laziness lukewarmness negligence unholyness prophaness c. As that which would be the liklyest cause of the damnation of the people But if only the foresaid saith be the condition and all other Graces or Duties be but meer signal effects of this and signal qualifications of the subject and not so much a conditions what need all this Were it not then better to perswade all people even when they are whoring or drunk to trust on Christ to pardon and justifie them And then when they have the tree and cause the fruits and signal effects will follow Quest 24. Yea Why do the best Divines preach so much against Presumption And what is Presumption if it be not this very faith which Divines call justifying viz. the Trusting to Christ for Pardon and Salvation only without taking him for their King and Prophet If it be said that this last must be present though not justifie How can the bare presence of an idle Accident so make or marr the efficacy of the cause Quest 25. If to be unwilling that Christ should raign over us be part of the directly condemning sin Luke 19.27 why is not the willingness he should raign part of saving justifying faith Quest 26. Seeing resting in Christ is no Physical apprehension of him who is bodily in Heaven nor of his Righteousness which is not a being capable of such an apprehension How can that Resting justifie more then any other Act but only as it is the condition to which the Promise is made Resting on a friend for a Benefit makes it not yours but his gift does that As Perkins cited by me To believe the Kingdom of France shall be mine makes it not mine But to believe Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven c. vid. loc where he saith as much as I vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not said He that believeth shall be justified and saved would Believing have done it And if he had said He that repenteth or loveth or calleth on the name of the Lord shall be justified or saved would not these have done it if so then doth not faith justifie directly as the condition of the Gift Promise or new Covenant And its apprehension is but its aptitude to be set apart for this Office And if it justifie as a condition of the Promise must not others do it so far as they are parts of the Condition Sir If you should deny me the favour I hope for in resolving these doubts yet let me hear whether I may expect it or not And in the interim I shall search in jealousie and pray for direction But till your Arguments shall change my judgement I remain confident that I can maintain most of the Antinomian Dotages against any man that denyeth the principles of my Book and that which is accounted novelty in it is but a more explicate distinct necessary delivery of common Truths Yours RICHARD BAXTER April 5 1650 Sir I Am sorry that you are not in capacity for the motion I profered I thought discourse would not so much infeeble you especially when it would have been in so loving a way And I judged it the more seasable because I had been informed of a late solemn conference you had about Paedobaptism which could not but much spend you I shall press no more for it although this very letter doth abundantly confirm me that letters are but a loss of time for one word might have prevented many large digressions Is not that endeavour of yours in your seventh question to prove out of my book that Repentance is a necessary condition or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned c. a meer impertinency You earnestly desire satisfaction of your conscience therefore I cannot think you do wilfully mistake For is that the state of the question with us Is it not this whether the Gospel Righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing You say by believing and Obedience I say only believing I say faith is only the condition justifying or instrument receiving you make a justifying Repentance a justifying Patience you make other acts of grace justifying as well so that whereas heretofore we only had justifying faith now there are as many other qualities and all justifying as there are Graces So that I do firmly hold and it needs a recantation that repentance and other exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and are media ordinata in the use whereof only pardon can be had But what is this to you Who expresly maintain the righteousness of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours upon our godly working as well as believing If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith had no peculiar Instrumentality in our Justification but what other Graces have then you had hit the mark What is more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato which are not in actu justificationis The fastening of the head to the body is a necessary condition in homine vidente but it is not in actu videntis You grant indeed some precedency to faith but you make Faith and Works aequè though not aequaliter the conditions of Justification I should say much more to the state of the question but I forbear In other things you seem to come off and though I do not say you recede from your Assertions yet you much mollifie them that I need not therein contend with you But here is the stick Let it be demonstrated that whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Justification to believing only as through faith and by Faith and through faith in his blood that you can as truly say it s received by love and it s through love of his blood shed for our sakes c. This is a little of that much which might be said to the state of the question This I judge new Doctrine justifying Repentance justifying Charity And in my Letter I laid down an Argument Rom. 4. Concerning Abrahams Justification the Pattern of all others To this you reckon up many Answers but I see not the Argument shaken by it First you say you exclude a co-operation effective but why do we strive about words You do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Whereas Paul saith he would be found having the Righteousness which is by faith you will add and which is by love by zeal 2. You desire it to be proved that Paul excludes all works under any notion I think it s very easily done First because of the immediate opposition between Faith and Works now you will contradict Pauls Argument and give a tertium works that are of Grace But the Apostles opposition is so immediate here and
then some other and but propter aliud quasi conditio conditionis and if you say so of Repentance c. we should not disagree You say In other things I come off and so mollifie my assertions that you need not contend Answ 1. I would you had told me wherein I so come off For I know not of a word If you mean in that I now say obedience is no condition of our first attaining justification but only of the continuance of it c. I said the same over and over in my book and lest it should be over-lookt I put it in the Index of distinctions If you mean not this I know not what you mean 2. But if explication of my self will so mollifie and prevent contending I shall be glad to explain my self yet further Yea and heartily to recant where I see my error For that which you desire I demonstrate that its By love and Through love c. I have answered before by distinguishing of the sense of By and Through and in my sense I have brought you forty plain Texts in my book for proof of it which shew it is no new Doctrine To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you say that Abrahams justification is the pattern of all others I conceive that an uncouth speech strange to Scripture for phrase and proper sense though in a large sense tolerable and true Certain I am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we are justified by faith without the works of the Law but as certain that our faith must differ from Abrahams even in the essentials of it We must believe that this Jesus is he or we shall dye in our sins which Abraham was not required to believe Our faith is an explicite Assent and Consent to the Mediators Offices viz. that he be our Lord and Saviour and a Covenanting with him and giving up our selves to him accordingly But whether Abrahams and all recited in Heb. 11. were such is questionable Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern seems to be it that occasioned Grotius to give that wretched definition of faith Annot. in loc that it is but a high estimation of Gods power and wisdom and faithfulness in keeping his promises c. yet I know he came short also of describing that faith which he lookt on as the pattern My first answer was that I exclude also any effective co-operation to which you say Why do we strive about words c. I see that mens conceivings are so various that there is no hopes that we should be in all things of one mind Because I was loth to strive about words therefore I distinguished between causality and conditionality knowing that the word By was ambiguous when we are said to be justified By faith c. now you take this distinguishing to be striving about words to avoid which you would bring we back to the ambiguous term again Whereas I cannot but be most confident that as guile is most in Generals so there would be nothing else between us but striving about words if we dispute on an unexplained term and without distinction Do you indeed think that to be an efficient cause of our justification and to be a bare condition is all one or do you think the difference to be of no moment You say I do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Answ 1. You should have said Let the sense or way of justifying be what it will for sure the difference between an efficient cause and a condition is more then in the expression or else I have been long mistaken 2. I do not exclude God justifying Christ justifying the Word justifying c. and yet to distinguish between the way that these justifie in and the way in which faith justifies I take to be no striving about words but of as high concernment as my salvation is worth 3. Either you mislike my phrase or my sense if the phrase then you mislike the word of God which saith a man is justified by works and not by faith only If the sense then you should not fall upon the phrase and then to distinguish and explain is not to strive about words 4. If I do bring faith and obedience neerer in justification then others it is not by giving more to works then others but by giving less to faith And if in that I err you should have fallen on that and shewed it and not speak still as if I gave more to works then you I am sure I give less to man and therefore no less than you to Christ I perceive not the least disadvantage herein that I lye open to but only the odium of the phrase of justification by works with men that are carried by prejudice and custome 5. I will not quarrel about such a word but I like not your phrase of Faith justifying and works justifying for it is fitter to introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them then to say We are justified by faith and by works which are only the Scripture phrase and signifie but a conditionality To that you say out of Phil. 3.9 I believe Paul doth most appositely oppose the righteousness which is by faith to that which is by the Law But then 1. He means not By faith as an instrument of justification 2. Nor by faith which is but a meer affiance on Christ for justification or only as such 3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge Repentance Obedience c. 4. But to say that righteousness or justification is by love or by obedience c. Without adding any more is not a convenient speech as it is to say that righteousness is by faith 1. Because the speech seems to be of the first receiving of righteousness wherein obedience or works have no hand 2. Because faith having most clear direct relation to Christ doth most plainly point out our righteousness to be in him 3. Because faith as it is taken in the Gospel is a most comprehensive grace containing many acts and implying or including many others which relate to Christ as the object also Even obedience to Christ is implyed as a necessary subsequent part of the condition seeing faith is an accepting of Christ as Lord and King and Head and Husband as well as a justifier 5. Yet Scripture saith as well as I that Christ shall justifie us By his knowledge and we shall be justified by our words and by works and me thinks it should be no sin to speak the words of God except it be shewed that I misunderstand them It is not so fit a phrase to say that a poor ignoble woman was made rich and honorable by her Love or Obedience or Marriage faithfulness and conjugal actions as to say it was by marriage with such a Noble man or consent to take him to be her husband For the marriage consent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affection action and faithfulness Yet are these last
his faith is counted for righteousness Answ 1. I suppose the Reader understandeth that the Legal or rather Pro-legal Righteousness that I plead for is Christs Merits and Satisfaction made over to us for the effects and that the personal Evangelical Righteousness is our believing and repenting Now that these are both necessary this very Text proveth which he citeth against it For the necessity of Christs meritorious Righteousness he will not deny that it is here implyed and the necessity of our own faith is twice exprest To him that believeth his faith is counted for righteousness If it be the Being of Faith that this Brother would exclude it is here twice exprest If it be only the naming it a righteousness That name also is here exprest How could he have brought a plainer evidence against himself 2. To his Argument I distinguish of Vngodliness If it be taken for an unregenerate impenitent unbeliever then I deny the Mâ—nor at least in sensu composito A person in the instant of Justification is not an unbeliever This Text shameth him that will affirm it But if by Vngodly be meant Sinners or persons unjustifyable by the works of the Law who are legally impious then I deny the consequence of the Major Do I need to tell a Divine that a man may be a sinner and a penitent Believer at once The Syriack and Ethiopick translating the word sinners do thus expound the Text and it s the common Exposition of most judicious Divines It is not of the Apostles meaning to tell you that God justifieth impenitent Infidels or haters of God but that he justifieth sinners legally condemned and unworthy yet true Believers as the Text expresseth 3. If any reject this Exposition and will take ungodly here for the Impenitent then the other Exposition solveth his Objection viz. They were Impenitent and Unbelievers in the instant next foregoing but not in the instant of Justification For faith and Justification are in the same instant of time 4. Rather then believe that God justifieth Infidels contrary to the text I would interpret this Text as Beza doth some other as speaking of Justification as comprehending both Conversion and Forgiveness even the conferring of Inherent and Imputed Righteousness both and so God justifieth Infidels themselves that is giveth them first faith and Repentance and then forgiveness and eternal life in Christ 5. But I wonder at his proof of his Sequel Because he who is ungodly is not legally righteous what is that to the Question It is Legal righteousness in Christ that Justification giveth him Therefore we all suppose he hath it not before But he is personally Evangelically Righteous as soon as he Believes so far as to be a true performer of the Condition of Justification and then in the same instant he receiveth by Justification that Righteousness of Christ which answereth the Law Mr. W. If nothing ought to be asserted by us which ever-throws Apostolical writings then the necessity of a two-fold righteousness ought not to be asserted But Ergo. The Sequel is proved by this Dilemma Apostolical writings are utterly against a two-fold Righteousness in this work therefore to assert both these kinds is to overthrow their writings For to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by works of the Law if the righteousness of Faith were not sufficient And certainly if both were required as absolutely necessary it would argue extream ignorance in Paul if he should not have known it and as great unfaithfulness if c. Answ Either this Writer owns the two-fold Righteousness that he disputeth against or not If he did not he were an Infidel or wretched Heretick directly denying Christ or Faith For Christ is the one Righteousness and faith the other If he do own them as I doubt not at all but he doth is it not good service to the Church to pour out this opposition against words not understood and to make men believe that the difference is so material as to overthrow the Scriptures But to his Argument I deny the consequence of the Major and how is it proved forsooth by a Dilemma which other folks call an Enthymeme Of which the Antecedent That Apostolical writings are against a two-fold righteousness is proved by this Writers word A learned proof I into which this Disputations are ultimately resolved It is the very work of Pauls Epistles to prove the necessity of this Two-fold Righteousness unless you will with the Papists call it rather two parts of one Righteousness Christs merits and mans faith one in our surety the other wrought by him in our selves But saith he to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by the works of the Law If the Righteousness of faith were not sufficient I answer you 1. Because no man hath a personal legal Righteousness But Paul never disputed against a legal Righteousness in Christ or his fulfilling the Law or being made a curse for us Do you think he did 2. A Righteousness of faith is sufficient for it signifieth this two-fold righteousness 1. That righteousness which faith accepteth which is of Faith because proclaimed in the Gospel and is the object of Faith and yet it is legal in that it was a Conformity to the Law and satisfaction to the Law-giver 2. Faith it self which is a particular subservient Evangelical Rigeteousness for the application and possession of the former And now was here a fit occasion to speak reproach fully of Paul as extream ignorant or unfaithful or immanis sophista and all because he would not deny either Christ or Faith Sure Paul hath let us see by revealing both that he was neither ignorant unfaithfull nor a Sophister Mr. W. 4. If both Legal and Evangelical righteousness were thus required to the purpose of justifying then it must be because the Evangelical is of it self insufficient But For if Christs righteousness be insufficient to Salvation he were not a sufficient Saviour and if the Righteousness of Faith in him were of it self insuffient Answ By this time I am tempted to repent that I medled with this Brother If he live to read over a reply or two he may possibly understand them that he writes against He will prove that a Legal Righteousness is not necessary because Christs righteousness which is it that I called legal is sufficient It s sufficient alone therefore not Necessary Am not I like to have a fair hand think you of this Disputer To his Argument once more I distinguish Evangelical righteousness it twofold 1. That which the Gospel revealeth and offereth and this is Christs righteousness therefore called Evangelical but also Legal because it answered the rule of the Law of works and its ends 2. That which the Gospel hath made the Condition of our part in Christ and his righteousness and this is Faith it self Both these are sufficient to Justification but Faith is neither sufficient nor is Faith without Christs legal righteousness And Christ is sufficient Hypothetically but
commanded in the Law and Abrahams work was a sacrificing or offering a work of the Ceremonial Law ver 21. 3. Repentance is obedience to one Gospel Precept yet Faith and Repentance are distinguished Mar. 1.15.6 1. Love Faith Hope are three 1 Cor. 13.13 1. Tim. 1.5 2 Thes 1.3 faith and Love have different Objects Col. 1.4 Phil. 5. 1 Thes 1. ◠Therefore not the same nor one an Essential part of the other 4. Obedience is a sign to prove faith Jam. 2.18 and therefore not an Essential part 5. If Faith include obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an Essential part then actual faith includes actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an essential part and if the Act of faith Justifie men at Age not the Habit and receiving Christ as King as immediatly Justifie as believing in Christ as Saviour then a person of Age is not Justified without actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts and this may be not till Death if then and so no Justification in this Life 6. If Faith justifie as immediatly by receiving Christ as King as by receiving him as Saviour then it justifies by receiving Christ as Judge Matth. 25.34 as Law-giver Avenger of his enemies and so a man is justified By receiving Christs Judging Punishing Condemning Commanding Avenging as well as saving by his Death which is contrary to Rom. 3.25 5.9 7. The Scripture makes the object of justifying faith Christs Death Resurrection Blood Rom. 3.25 10.9 Gal. 2.20 21. Nowhere Christs dominion Ergo. Subjection to Christ as King is not an essential part 8. The object of Faith is nowhere made to be a Gospel Precept such as forgiving others using Sacraments c. nor Christ as commanding but the Declaration of the Accomplishments of Christ and the counsel of God in him 1 Cor. 15.1 c. Rom. 1 16 17. Gal. 3.8 Ergo Obedience is not an Essential part 9. If it be an essential part then either Genus or Difference for no other Essential parts belong to a quality or Action not the Genus that 's Assent Aph. p. 254.274 when the object is a Proposition when it is an Incomplex term Trust is the Genus not the Difference that 's chiefly taken from the object Keker syst Logic. l. 1. sect 2. c. 2. can Defin. Accid 5.7 Obedience may make known Faith as a sign but not as a part it s at least in order of Nature after the cause is afore the effect the Antecedent before the Consequent and faith is such Heb. 11.8 c. 10. If Faith be a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ then it should be Love Joy Hope Understanding Will Memory Fear But this is not to be said Ergo. It is alleadged 1. Faith must be the Act of the whole soul else part should receive him part not Answ Faith is expressed by the Metaphor of Receiving Joh. 1.12 Col. 2.6 And he is Received by the Receiving of his Word Joh. 12.48 1 Thes 2.13 which is Received by Assent 2. The whole soul receives Christ though by other Graces besides faith 2. Acts 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Answ The term Whole notes not every inward faculty but as after sincerely not feignedly as Simon Magus So Illyricus 3. Faith is called Obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 1 Pet. 1.22 4.17 2 Thes 1.8 Gal. 3.1 5.7 Heb. 5.9 But the Gospel commandeth All thus to obey Christ as Lord forgive others love his people bear what sufferings are Imposed diligently use his Means and Ordinances confessing bewailing sins praying for pardon sincerely and to the end Answ Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeyng Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ but be it granted Faith is called obeying of Christ or the Gospel doth it follow that it is obedience in doing those named Acts It may be obedience by Assent to the Doctrine of Christ that he is the Messiah died for sins c. commanded 1 Cor. 15.3 1 Joh. 3.23 which the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do rather Import then the other Acts mentioned The Gospel and Truth are restrained to the Doctrine of Christs coming dying c nowhere applyed that I know to the Precepts of forgiving others suffering death receiving the Lords Supper c. 4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called faith Gal. 3.12 23 25. Answer Neither of these places make faith the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant nor any place else In Gal. 3.12 It s said the Law that is the Covenant of the Law is not of Faith i. e. doth not assign Life to Faith in Christ Faith Gal. 3 23 25. is put saith Piscat for the time of the Gospel or Christ say others or the Doctrine of Faith By Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justification in this life is fulfilled not concerning every Benefit of the new Covenant Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins forgiving others doing good to the Saints of entering into Life 5. The Gospel reveals not Christs offices as separate Ergo. They mnst be so believed Answ The conclusion is granted but proves not faith to justifie in receiving Christ as King 6. It offers Christ as King and so must be received Answer the same 7. Scripture nowhere tieth Justification to the receit of him as priest only Ar. The contrary is proved from Rom. 3.25 5.9 8. Commonly Christ is called our Lord and Saviour Answ True But we are justified by his blood 9. If we receive him not as a King then not as an entire Saviour Answ True Yet Justification is by his death 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 2.21 Rom. 3 25 and 59. 10. Christ is not received truly if not entirely as King Answ True But this proves not that obedience is an essential part of faith or that subjection to Christ as King justifies as immediatety as receiving him as Saviour 11. The exalting of his proper Kingly office is a Principal End of Christs dying Psal 2. Rom. 14.9 Answ True But it follows not that either Obedience is an Essential part of faith or subjection to Christ as King justifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or Priest Yours in the Truth I.T. Sir IT s to be considered 1. Whether these words answer to Valedict orat at B. pag. 191. Nothing but the satisfaction of Christ is that which our Divines call the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness which we must plead to Acquit us in Judgement And it is said Rom. 3.25 through faith in his Blood and Rom. 5.9 by his Blood Do not prove Christs Death either the sole or chief Object of faith as Justifying and how this stands with Aphorism of Justification Thes 66. and its Explication 2. Whether the words Luk. 12.14 import not a disclaiming or denial of a Title to judge and so your answer be not insufficient pag. 276. which seems to suppose a Title and only a Suspension of Exercise in that state of Humiliation 3.
grace yet his works would have been a causall Condition of the blessedness promised In the Covenant of Grace though what man doth is by the gift of God yet look upon the same gift as our duty and as a Condition which in our persons is performed This inferreth some Moral Efficiency Answ 1. See then all you that are accounted Orthodox the multitude of Protestant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions what a case you have brought your selves into And rejoyce then all you that have against them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions for your Cause is better then some have made you believe and in particular this Reverend Author Yea see what a case he hath argued himself into while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were supposed in For he himself writeth against those that make Repentance to be but a sign and deny it to be a Condition to qualifie the subject for Iustification Treat of Iustif part 1. Lect. 20. And he saith that in some gross sins there are many Conditions requisite besides humiliation without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained and instanceth in restitution pag. 210. with many the like passages 2. Either you mean that Adams works would have been Causall quatenus a Condition performed or else quatenus meritorious ex natura materia or some other cause The first I still deny and is it that you should prove and not go on with naked affirmations The second I will not yield you as to the notion of meritorious though it be nothing to our question The same I say of your later instance of Gospel Conditions Prove them morally efficient qua tales if you can Treat ib. And so though in words they deny yet in deed they do exalt works to some kind of causality Answ I am perswaded you speak not this out of malice but is it not as unkind and unjust as if I should perswade men that you make God the Author of sin indeed though you deny it in words 1. What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my words Speak out and tell the world and spare me not But if it be words that you set against words 1. Why should you not believe my Negations as well as my supposed affirmations Am I credible only when I speak amiss and not at all when I speak right A charitable judgementi 2. And which should you take to be indeed my sense A naked term Condition expounded by you that never saw my heart and therefore know not how I understand it further then I tell you Or rather my express explication of that term in a sense contrary to your supposition â—ear all you that are impartial and judge I say A Condition is no Cause and Faith and Repentance are Conditions My Reverend Brother tells you now that in word I deny them to be efficient Causes but in deed I make them such viz. I make them to be what I deny them to be Judge between us as you see cause Suppose I say that Scripture is Sacred and withall I add that by Sacred I mean that which is related to God as proceeding from him and separated to him and I plead Etymologie and the Authority of Authors and Custom for my speech If my Reverend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitness of the word and say that sacer signifieth only execrabilis I will not be offended with him though I will not believe him but should so good and wise a man proclaim in print that sacer signifieth only execrabilis and therefore that though in word I call Scripture Sacred yet in deed I make it execrable I should say this were unkind dealing What! plainly to say that a Verbal controversie is a Real one and that contrary to my frequent published professions What is this but to say Whatever he saith I know his heart to be contrary Should a man deal so with your self now he hath somewhat to say for it For you first profess Repentance and Restitution to be a Condition as I do and when you have done profess Conditions to have a Moral Efficiency which I deny But what 's this to me that am not of your mind Treat pag. 229. A fifth Argument is that which so much sounds in all Books If good works be the effect and fruit of our Justification then they cannot be Conditions or Causa sine qua non of our Iustification But c. Answ 1. I deny the Minor in the sense of your party Our first Repentance our first desire of Christ as our Saviour and Love to him as a Saviour and our first disclaiming of all other Saviours and our first accepting him as Lord and Teacher and as a Saviour from the Power of sin as well as the guilt all these are works with you and yet all these are not the effects of our Relative Justification nor any of them 2. As to External acts and Consequent internal acts I deny your Consequence taking it of continued or final Justification though I easily yield it as to our Justification at the first 1. All the acts of justifying faith besides the first act are as truly effects of our first Justification as our other graces or gracious acts are And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Justification Why not Conditions as well as Instruments or Causes Do you think that only the first instantaneous act of faith doth justifie and no other after through the course of our lives I prove the contrary from the instance of Abraham It was not the first act of his faith that Paul mentioneth when he proveth from him Justification by faith As it s no good Consequence Faith afterward is the effect of Iustification before therefore it cannot afterward justifie or be a Condition So it s no good Consequence as to Repentance Hope or Obedience 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Justification whereof they are the effect and which went before them which is granted you But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of continued or final Justification Sucking the brest did not cause life in the beginning therefore it is not a means to continue it It followeth not You well teach that the Justification at the last Judgement is the chief and most eminent Justification This hath more Conditions then your first pardon of sin had yea as many as your salvation hath as hath been formerly proved and may be proved more at large Treat pag. 230. By this we may see that more things are required to our Salvation then to our Iustification to be possessors of heaven and than it should be to entitle us thereto Answ 1. It s true as to our first Justifying and its true as to our present continued state because perseverance is still requisite to salvation But it s not true as to
flyeth too boldly in the face of Christ and many a plain Text of Scripture Christ saith John 15.10 If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my love even as I have kept c. 14. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you Mat. 7.21 Not every one that saith Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven 23 24. Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them c. Mat. 5. throughout verse 20. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven 1 John 3.10 In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the Devil whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his brother An hundred such passages might be cited And will you meet all these with your objections and say How shall I know when I have the full number c. Know that you have sincere Faith Repentance and Obedience and you may know you perform that Condition of the Gospel else not Treat pag. 236. That if good works be a Condition of Justification then none are justified till their death because in every good work is required perseverance in so much that perseverance is that to which the promise is made Mat. 24.6 Heb. 10.38 Rev. 2.7 20. So that it is not good works simply but persevered in that is required and therefore no Justification to the end of our daies so that we cannot have any peace with God till then Neither doth it avail to say Justification is not compleat till then for it cannot be at all till then because the Condition that gives life to all is not till then Answ 1. And is not perseverance in faith as necessary as perseverance in obedience Read Col. 1.23 John 15.2 3 c. and many the like and judge Will you thence infer that none are justified till death 2. But a little step out of the darkness of your Confusion will bring the fallacy of your Argument to the light and there will need no more to it The Gospel conveyeth to us several benefits some without any Condition and several benefits on several Conditions 1. Our first Actual pardon and Justification and right to life is given on Condition of our first Faith and Repentance and not on Condition of External works of Obedience nor yet of the persevering in faith it self much less in that Obedience 2. Our state of Justification is continued on condition of the continuance of Faith and Repentance with sincere Obedience 3. Our particular following sins have a particular pardon on Condition of the Continuance of the habits and renewing of the acts of that faith and repentance for known observed sins 4. Our full Justification by Sentence at Judgement is on the same condition as Glorification viz. On perseverance in Faith Repentance Hope Love and sincere Obedience Prove now if you can that perseverance is the Condition of our first pardon Prove if you can that final perseverance is the Condition of our continuance in a justified state till now You say Justification and peace cannot be ours till the condition be performed But what condition of that gift or of another gift If of that it s granted but it s still denyed that perseverance is any of the Condition of our first pardon If of another gift it s no reason of your Consequence If you speak of final Justification and Salvation I grant you all thus far that you have no full Right of possessing them but on perseverance nor no Right at all or certainty of Salvation but on supposition of perseverance as necessary to the possession And therefore if you can prove that we have no certainty of perseverance I will yield that we have no certainty of salvation Treat Thus we have asserted this truth by many Arguments and though any one singly by it self may not convince yet altogether may satisfie Now to the great Objections Answ I heartily wish that wiser Readers may find more truth and satisfaction in them then I can do if it be there to be found and to that end that they make their best of them all Treat James saith Abraham was justified by works so that in outward appearances these two great Apostles speak contradictions which hath made some deny the Canonical authority of James 's Epistle Yea one said blasphemously Althameirius Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum But this is to cut not untie the knot 1. The scope of the Apostle Paul is to treat upon our Justification before God and what is the Instrument and means of obtaining it But the Apostle James takes Justification for the Declaration and Manifestation of it before men Answ This is not the only sense of James as I have proved before to which I refer you no nor any part of the sense of the word Justification with him though he mention shewing faith by works to men as an argument for his main conclusion yet he nowhere expoundeth the word Justification by it James expresly speaks of Imputation of Righteousness by God and of that Justification which is meant in the words of Gen. concerning Abraham even the same words that Paul expoundeth and of that Justification which inferreth salvation Treat Paul informeth us that faith only justifieth and James what kind of faith it is even a lively working faith Answ I have answered this in the beginning of this Disputation Treat It s said They dare not go against the plain words of the Apostle But it s not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the words but the sense Answ Our Question is How the sense of James shall be known Will you say not by the words but by the sense The words are to express the sense and we must take heed of forcing them as much as we can As to your saying of the Anthropomorphites and Hoc est corpus meum I answer the Tropical sense is oft the plainest and in particular in these instances If any man point to several pictures and say This is Caesar and this is Pompey c. I shall by use of speech the interpreter of words take the tropical sense to be the plainest and not the literal viz. That this is Caesars Image and not that it is his person And so here 2. Give me any cogent Evidence that I must leave the plain sense and I am satisfied 3. Remember I pray you that it s not the words but the sense that you except against Do not you except hereafter against the saying that we are Justified by works and not by faith only as James doth but against the ill sense that you can prove to be put upon the words Treat pag. 238. Lastly They are forced to add to the Apostle for they say works justifie as the Condition of the Gospel which the Apostle doth not speak a
Prince my Commander my Tutor my Physician my Councellor c. which every one of them contain many Physical acts 4. There is a fourfold Unity here to be discerned that the term One may be understood 1. A general Unity and this is not it in question We are agreed that in genere actus and in genere actus secundi and in genere actus immanentis Faith is but One. 2. A Unity of the lowest Genus and the superi or species 3. A Unity of the species specialissima 4. A Numerical Vnity Our Question is of the third but yet because the second and fourth are also controverted I shall speak of them before I come to the Question And concerning the fourth I Assert that The Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification is not only one numerical Act of the Soul My Opponents in this though they are unwilling to appear in the opposition must needs be all those that say Justification is simul semel at once and but once and that it is a good Argument against any acts or works after Faith that They exist not till we are justified therefore they are no conditions of our Justification and all those that deny and scorn the distinction between 1. Our Justification at the first or putting us into a justified state 2. And our daily Justification by the continuation of that state 3. And our frequently reiterated particular Justification from the Guilt of particular sins 4. And our final Justification by the sentence of the Judge Especially by denying the second they must needs deny my Assertion as shall be shewed anon Argum. 1. If Paul speak not only of Justification as begun but as continued then the Faith which he opposeth to works is not only one numerical Act. For there must needs go some other Numerical Act before it or else the person could not be justified by faith before But the Antecedent is true as I prove from Rom. 4.18 19. and Gal. 3. If Paul prove Justification by faith from the instance of Abrahams believing after that he was justified then he speaketh not only of Justification as begun or of our first Being justified But the Antecedent is plain in the Text compared with Gen. 12. and 13 and 14. and 15. Abraham was a justified man before he believed the Promise of Sara's having a Son Argum. 2 If a true Believer have a justifying Faith after his first Justification even as long as he liveth then the Faith which Paul opposeth to works is not only one numerical Act because that first Numerical Act doth not continue with us But the Antecedent is true as appeareth 1. from the forementioned Instance of Abraham 2 From the necessity of a continued Active Justification For the Passive else would cease and we should be unjustified If God did not continue to forgive us and still actively repute us just and accept us as just and impute Righteousness to us and his Gospel-Grant did not continually justifie us as every Fundamentum continually causeth the Relation we should cease to be justified And Gods active Justification continueth not without the continuance of mans Actual or Habitual Faith Otherwise he should justifie an Infidel and he should justifie afterwards in another way and on other terms then he did at first 3. From the continued Efficacy of Christs Merits Intercession and Covenant which daily justifie us So that he that saith that he was never justified but once at one moment and by one numemerical Act of Faith must say that Christ was his Justifier actually but for a moment and that he will not be beholden to him to justifie him any more And yet that no man may have a pretence of quarrelling about meer words that hath a mind to it let it still be remembred that as the word Justification is used to signifie the first making a man just that was unjust relatively or qualitatively So I confess that God that Christ that the Covenant do justifie us Universally but once though particularly from particular sins often And thus it is but one Act of Faith by which we are justified Relatively and not the Habit at all But as Justification is taken for the same Act continued though the mutation on us be not ab eodem termino so we are justified every moment and have a justifying faith continually and are justified by the Habit at least as much as by the Act and in some respect more The Sun doth as truly Illuminate our part of the world all day after as at Sun rising and by the same Action or Emanation in kind But as Illuminating is taken for turning night into day or illuminating the dark world from its darkness so it doth only illuminate it from break of day to Sun rising Your Lease of your house or Land doth first make you a Tenant of no Tenant at the first sealing and delivering but it may by the same sort of action continue your Right till it expire and so continue you a Tenant And thus we are continually justified by God by Christ by the Covenant and by Faith Now as to the second kind or matter of Unity of an Inferior Genus and Superior species this is two-fold 1. As the Acts of mans soul are specified and denominated from the Faculties or Powers or if any deny that real distinction of faculties from the Objects of Intellection Volition c. generally considered 2. As the acts of the soul are specified by their special Objects though not speciei specialissimae As to the former the question is one of these two which you will in terms for they are one in sense Whether the act of Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification be only an act of the Intellect or only an act of the Will Or Whether it have only Entity and Verity or only Goodness for its Object And in the second case the Question is this Whether God alone or Christ alone or the Promise alone or Pardon or Righteousness alone or Heaven alone c. be the Object of that Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification But the thing intended in our Question is de specie specialissima Whether it be but one special act which Paul opposeth to works in Justification Here are three more Propositions that I shall handle in order though the last only be necessary to me Proposition 2. The Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification is not only an Act of the Intellect nor only of the Will I shall say but little of this because I have among Protestants but few Adversaries The Papists indeed seat it in the Intellect only and so doth Camero calling it a Perswasion and some few Protestants some few others as Amesius sometimes place it only in the Will and take Assent to be but a presupposed Act and they call it Affiance or as Amesius also Election Acceptance or Consent or embracing or Recumbency or such like Pemble taking Truth
hear that their Discretion forbad them the other For all men are not so easily whistled into a Christs-Church contention against the Truth and Church of Christ as ' Dr. K. and one or two Confidents that living in a cold and sâ—eril Country are less substantive and more adjective then Innocents and Independents use to be None 's here so fruitfull as the Leaning Vine And what though some be drunken with the Wine They 'l fight the better if they can but hit And lay about them without fear or But stay See What Example is As the name of Dâ— K. and the remembrance of his differtatiuncula an Appendant to fax pro Tribunali that could salva fide fidem solvere began to tice me into a jocound vein so your concluding Poetry had almost tempted me in an Apish imitation to Poetize when weariness made me think of a conclusion But I had rather conclude with this serious motion to you that my end may meet your beginning that before you next write on this Subject you will better consider of the question that your qua justificans concerneth And instead of telling us that fides qua justificans respicit Christum Salvatorem that is fides qua justificans est fides as if it were justifying in order of Nature before it is Faith you will be pleased to tell us sub qua ratione fides justificat vel fide justificamut Whether you will say that fides qua justificans justificat or fides qua fides justificat which I think you disown or fides qua respicit apprehendit recipit Christum which is all one as fides qua fides or fides qua Instrumentum apprehendens which Metaphorical expression still signifieth no more then qua credit in Christum or qua fides Or whether you will stand to what you have affirmed chap. 9. pag. 67. that its Gods assignation of it to the office who therefore doth it because he wills it and to what you said pag 304. The meerest formal reason of a Believers Interest to pardon is a Believers fulfilling the condition And if you will stand to this that you have said and understand that the Doctrine of us whom you assault is the same more carefully expressed be intreated then to let your next bolt be shot at the right mark which is all that 's now requested of you by Your Christian Brother whether you will or no RICHARD BAXTER Decemb. 25. 1657. Richard Baxters DISCVSSION OF Mr John Tombes his Friendly Acceptable ANIMADVERSIONS ON HIS Aphorisms and other Writings About the Nature of Justification and of justifying Faith 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. Sir UPON reading of the Postscript in your late Book I have sent you these Animadversions You say Aphor. of Justification â—ag 184. All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life I understand of Justification in Title of Law So Rom. 5.1 and 4 2. and 5.9 Jam. 2.21 25 c. I conceive Justification being Gods Act Rom. 3.30 Rom. 8.33 consequent upon Faith and calling and importing a sentence opposite to Condemnation Rom. 8.30 33 34. and 5.1 terminated on particular persons Rom. 4.2 3 Rom. 8.30 it must be more then the Vertual Justification in Law-Title which is only an act of God prescribing or promisig a way of Justification not the sentence it self and is general and indeterminate to particular persons and is performed before the person justified believes Yea is the same though none were actually justified and therefore in my apprehension that Act of Gods Covenanting or promising in which I conceive you place the Justification by Law-Title Thes 38. Is not the Justification by faith meant Rom. 5.1 c. Besides to be justified notes a Passion which presupposeth an Action an Act Transient not Immanent or only Gods purpose to justifie nor can it be Gods Promise to justifie For the Act though it be Transient yet it is only a Declaration what he will do his promise to justifie upon condition is not Justifying and therefore a man is not by the Covenant without a further Act Denominated Justified though he be made justifyable by it I conceive Justification is a Court term Importing an Act of God as Judge whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge but Rector thes 42. you mention the Angels judging us Righteous and Rejoycing therein which whence it should be but by a sentence passed in Heaven I know not Constitutive Justification different from Declarative by sentence I do not find expressed under the term Justification It would be considered whether any other Act besides the sentence doth make a man just but giving of faith notwithstanding Christs Death and the conditional Covenant before faith a person is only justifyable Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse A person is upon giving of Faith justified but not by giving of faith that 's an act of Sanctification but by a sentence of God Thes 59. You make justification a continued act now it being a transient act I suppose it may not be well called a continued Act which imports a successive motion between the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem whereas the act whether by sentence or Covenant is not such a Motion It s not to be denyed that the Benefit and Vertue of it is continued but I think not the Act. If it be not sâ—mel but saepe yet it should be rather called Actus Renovatus Repetitus Iteratus then continued I incline to think there is but one Justification of a person in this life though there be frequent remissions of sin Of this you may Consider In the Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 11. Doubtless the Gospel takes faith for our obedience to All Gospel Precepts Believing doth not produce subjection to Christ as King as a finite but contains it as an Essential part c. Aphor. p. 25.5 Faith doth as Really and Immediately Receive Christ as King as Saviour or Priest and so Justifie Thes 65. Scripture doth not take the word Faith for any one single Act nor yet for various Acts of one only faculty but for a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ its Object Thes 57. It is the Act of faith which justifies men at Age and not the Habit. Against this I object 1. Faith worketh by Love Gal. 5.16 If one be an essential part of the other and faith a compleat entire motion of the soul then when it is said Faith worketh by Love it might be said it worketh by Faith 2. Gospel Precepts are many if not all the same with the Moral Law if Justified then by obedience to them are we not justified by the works of the Law You conceive the Justification Jam. 2. to be by works in a proper sence and that before God and Rahabs act was a work of Hospitality ver 25.