to learn of Christ as a Master or to be ruled by him yet cannot be justified or saved by him Proposition 10. I easily grant that Faith qud Christum Prophetam et Dominum recipit doth not justifie but only fides quâ Christum Prophetam Dominum recipit quâ est promissionis Conditio praestita But then I say the same also of Faith in Christ as Priest or in his Righteousness Having explained my meaning in these ten Propositions for preventing of Objections that concern not the Controversie but run upon mistakes I shall now proceed to prove the Thesis which is this Thesis We are justified by God by our Believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord and not only by Believing in his blood or Righteousness Argument 1. My first Argument shall be from the Concession of those that we dispute with They commonly grant us the point contended for Therefore we may take it for granted by them If you say What need you then dispute the point if they deny it not whom you dispute with I Answer some of them grant it and understand not that they grant it us because they understand not the sense of our Assertion And some of them understand that they grant it in our sense but yet deny it in another sense of their own and so make it a strife about a syllable But I shall prove the Concession left some yet discern it not If it be granted us that Believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Teacher is a real part of the Condition of our Justification then is it granted us that by this believing in him we are justified as by a Condition which is our sense and all that we assert But the former is true Therefore so is the later For the proof of the Antecedent which is all First Try whether you can meet with any Divine that dare deny it who believeth that Faith is the Condition of the Covenant Secondly And I am sure their writings do ordinarily confess it Their Doctrine that oppose us is That Faith is both a Condition and an Instrument but other Acts as Repentance c. may be Conditions but not Instruments And those that have waded so far into this Controversie seem to joyne these other Acts of Faith with the Conditions but not with the Instrument Thirdly They expresly make it antecedent to our Justification as of moral necessity ex constitutione permittentis and say it is the Fides quae justificat which is the thing desired if there be any sense in the words Fourthly They cannot deny to Faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher that which they commonly give to Repentance and most of them to many other Acts. But to be a Condition or part of the Condition of Justification is commonly by them ascribed to Repentance therefore they cannot deny it to these acts of faith So that you see I may fairly here break off and take the Thesis pro Concessa as to the sense Nothing more can be said by them but against our phrase whether it be proper to say that we are justified By that which is but a bare Condition of our Justification which if any will deny First We shall prove it by the consent of the world that apply the word By to any Medium And Dr. Twiss that told them contr Corvinum over and over that a condition is a Medium though it be not a cause and I think none will deny it Secondly by the consent of many Texts of Scripture But this must be referred to another Disputation to which it doth belong viz. about the Instrumentality of faith in justifying us which God willing I intend also to perform Argument 2. The usual language of the Scripture is that we are justified by faith in Christ or by believing in him without any exclusions of any essential part of that faith But faith in Christ doth essentially contain our believing in him as Teacher Priest and King or Lord therefore by believing in him as Teacher Priest and Lord we are justified The Major is past the denial of Christians as to the first part of it And for the second part the whole cause lyeth on it For the Minor also is past all controversie For if it be essential to Christ as Christ to be God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord then it is essential to faith in Christ by which we are justified to believe in him as God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord. But the Antecedent is most certain therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is because the act here is specified from its Object All this is past further question All the Question therefore is Whether Scripture do any where expound it self by excluding the other essential parts of faith from being those acts by which we are justified and have limited our justification to any one act This lyeth on the Affirmers to prove So that you must note that it is enough for me to prove that we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus for this Includeth all the essential acts till they shall prove on the contrary that it is but secundum quid and that God hath excluded all other essential acts of faith save that which they assert The proof therefore is on their part and not on mine And I shall try anon how well they prove it In the mean time let us see what way the Scripture goeth and observe that every Text by way of Authority doth afford us a several Argument unless they prove the exclusion First Mark 16.15 16 17. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and these signs shall follow them that believe c. Here the faith mentioned is the believing of the Gospel and the same with our becoming Christians and therefore not confined to one part or act of saving saith That Gospel which must be preached to all the world is it that is received by the faith here mentioned But that Gospel doth essentially contain more then the doctrine of Christs Priesthood therefore so doth that faith Object It is not Justification but Salvation that is there promised Answ It is that Salvation whereof Justification is a part It is such a Salvation as all have right to as soon as ever they believe and are baptized which comprehendeth Justification And the Scripture here and everywhere doth make the same faith without the least distinction to be the condition of Justification and of our Title to Glorification and never parcels out the several effects to several acts of faith except only in those Qualities or Acts of the soul which faith is to produce as an efficient cause To be justified by faith or Grace and to be saved by faith or Grace are promiscuously spoken as of the same faith or Grace Secondly John 3.15 16 18. He that believeth in him
Receiveth it as the Subject and his faith is but a Condition or means of it Or you mean the Moral active Metaphorical Receiving which is nothing but Consenting that it shall be ours or accepting And this is neither part of Justification nor proper Cause but a Condition and but part of the Condition And therefore here your meaning must be one of these two Either That Act of Faith which is the accepting of Justification is not the â—ying of Dominion To which I reply First taking it largely as a moral Act it s not true for its comprehensive of both of which more anon but taking it strictly as one Physical Act its true Secondly But then it s nothing to the purpose For we are not more truly justifyed by that Act which is the accepting of Justification or Consenting to be justified then we are by the Accepting of Christ for our Lord and Master the reason of which you have had before and shall have more fully anon or else you mean as before expressed That Act of Faith which is our Consenting to Justification is the whole Condition of our Justification and not the eying of Dominion But of that before If I may Judge by your Doctrine elsewhere expressed you mean only That the act of Faith which accepteth of Justification is the only Instrument of Justification of which in its due place It may here suffice to say again that I affirm not that in question to the be Instrument of it Be not offended that I enquire into the sense of your ambiguous phrase which I truly profess is to me not intelligible till you have explained in what sense it is that you intend it and therefore my enquiry is not needless Ar. 3. If the Scripture doth not only by the specificke Denomination as was last proved but also by description and mentioning those very acts include the believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher c. in that faith by which as a Condition we are justified then we are justified by believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher c. not only as a sacrifice or Meriter of Justification But the Antetedent is true therefore so is the Consequent I prove the Antecedent by many Texts Rom. 10 4 6 7 8 9 10. For Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth But the Righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise Say not in thy heart Who shall ascend into Heaven that is to bring Christ down from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring up Christ again from the dead But what saith it The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Here it is evident that it is a Believing unto Righteousness that is mentioned and therefore it is the Believing by which we are justified And then it is evident that the faith here called a believing unto Righteousness is the believing in the Lord Jesus expresly Christ as Lord and Saviour is made the Object of it and is not confined to a believing in one part of his Priesthood only Also that God raised Christ from the dead is the expressed object of this faith And the Resurrection of Christ is no part of his sacrifice or meer Priestly Office Rom. 4.24 25. But for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead Here it is evident that it is Justification it self that is the Benefit spoken of even the Imputing of Righteousness And that faith here is mentioned as the Condition of that Imputation If we believe And that this faith is described to be first a believing in him that raised Christ and not only in Christ Secondly A believing in Christ Jesus our Lord who is the express object of it and so his Lordship taken in and thirdly a believing in his Resurrection and not only in his blood or obedience So that I see no room left to encourage any doubting whether we are justified by believing in Christ as Lord and in his Resurrection and in God that raised him as the Condition of our Justification John 1.9 11 12. That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world He came to his own and his own received him not But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God to them that believe in his Name Here it is manifest First that it is the faith by which we are justified that is spoken of for its commonly agreed that Justification is here included in Adoption or at least that its the same act of faith by which we are adopted and justified Secondly Also that the object of this faith is Christ as the Light which is not his meer Priesthood Thirdly And that it is his person in his full office and not some single benefit Fourthly that it is called his Name and Believing in his Name is more then consenting to be justified by his blood and in Scripture-sense comprehendeth his Nature and Office and is all one as taking him as the true Messiah and becoming his Disciples Fifthly And it s much to be Noted that it is not by way of Physical efficacy by apprehension as I take Gold in my hand and so receive possession of it that faith hath its nearest Interest in our Adoption but it qualifieth the subject dispositively in the sight of God and so God gives men Power thereupon to become his sons So the forecited words Iohn 3.31 35 36. Where Life is given on Condition that we believe on the Son and that is expressed as the object of that faith as he is one that Cometh from Heaven and is above all and whom the Father loveth and hath given all things into his hands And so Iohn 5.22 23 24. He hath committed all judgement to the son that all men should honour the Son even as they honor the Father Verily verily I say unto you he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into Condemnation Here the faith mentioned is that which freeth men from Condemnation and therefore is it by which we are Iustified And the object of it is the Word of Christ and therefore not only his Priesthood and the Father as sending the Son even to his whole office of Redemption Moreover that faith by which our Justification is continued it is begun by this both they and we are agreed in though some yield not that any thing more is required to its continuance But the faith by which Justification is continued is the Belief of the Gospel
parity of Reason Christ as a Ransom and Meritor of Justification is not the only object of the justifying act of faith The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Minor of the Argument thus explained is not denied by them They confess that faith for sanctification doth receive Christ himself not only as the Meritor of it but as Teacher Lord King Head Husband and doth apply his particular promises But the meriting sanctification by his Blood and Obedience is no part of Christs Kingly or Prophetical Office but belongs to his Priesthood as well as the meriting of justification doth For Christs sacrifice layes the general Ground-work of all the following benefits both Justification Adoption Sanctification Glorification but it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all but there are appointed wayes for the collation of each one of them after the Purchase or Ransom So that if the apprehending of the Ransom which is the general Ground do only justifie then the apprehending of the same Ransom as meriting sanctification should only sanctify And neither the justifying nor sanctifying acts of faith should respect either Christs following acts of his Priesthood Intercession nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all And therefore as the sanctifying act must respect Christs following applicatory acts and not the purchase of sanctification only so the justifying act to speak as they must respect Christs following Collation or application and not only his Purchase of Justification And then I have that I plead for because Christ effectively justifies as King Argument 8. It is the same faith in Habit and Act by which we are Justified and by which we have right to the spirit of sanctification for further degrees and Adoption Glorification c. But it is believing in Christ as Prophet Priest and King by which we have Right to the spirit of sanctification to Adoption and Glorification Therefore it is the believing in Christ as Prophet Priest and King by which we are justified The Minor I suppose will not be denyed I am sure it is commonly granted The Major I prove thus If the true Christian faith be but one in essence and one undivided Condition of all these benefits of the Covenant then it is the same by which we are justified and have Right to the other benefits that is they are given us on that one undivided Condition But the Antecedent is true as I prove by parts thus First That it is but one in essence I think will not be denied If it be I prove it first from Ephes 4.5 There is one faith Secondly If Christ in the Essentials of a Saviour to be believed in be but One then the faith that receiveth him can be but One But the former is true Therefore so is the later Thirdly If the belief in Christ as Prophet as Priest and as King be but several Essential parts of the Christian faith and not several sorts of faith and no one of them is the true Christian faith it self alone no more then a Head or a Heart is a humane body then true faith is but one consiisting of its essential parts But the Antecedent is undoubted therefore so is the Consequent Secondly And as Faith in Essence is but One faith so this One faith is but One undivided Condition of the Covenant of Grace and it is not one part of faith that is the Condition of one benefit and another part of another and so the several benefits given on several acts of faith as several conditions of them but the entire faith in its Essentials is the condition of each benefit and therefore every essential part is as well the Condition of one promised benefit as of another This I prove First In that Scripture doth nowhere thus divide and make one part of faith the condition of Justification and another of Adoption and another of Glorification c. and therefore it is not to be done No man can give the least proof of such a thing from Scripture It is before proved that its one entire faith that is the Condition Till they that divide or multiply conditions according to the several benefits and acts of Faith can prove their division from Scripture they do nothing Secondly we find in Scripture not only Believing in Christ made the One Condition of all benefits but the same particular acts or parts of this faith having several sorts of benefits ascribed to them though doubtless but as parts of the whole conditions It s easie but needless to stay to instance Thirdly Otherwise it would follow by parity of reason that there must as many Conditions of the Covenant as there be benefits to be received by it to be respected by our faith which would be apparently absurd First Because of the number of Conditions Secondly Because of the quality of them For then not only Justification must have one condition Adoption another and Sanctification another and Glorification another and Comfort and Peace of Conscience another but perhaps several graces must have sveral conditions and the several blessings for our present life and Relations and Callings and so how many sorts of Faith should we have as well as justifying faith even one faith Adopting another Glorifying c. And as to the quality it is a groundless conceit that the belief or Acceptance of every particular inferiour mercy should be our title to that particular mercy For then the covetous would have title to their Riches because they accept them as from Christ and the natural man would have this title to his health and life and so of the rest whereas it is clear that it is faith in Christ as Christ as God and man King Priest and Prophet that is the condition of our Title even to health and life and every bit of bread so far as we have it as heirs of the Promise The promise is that all things shall work together for good not to every one that is willing to have the benefit but to them that love God Rom. 8.28 If we seek first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness not righteousness alone much less pardon alone other things shall be added Matth. 6.33 Fourthly If the Receiving of Christ as Christ essentially be that upon which we have title to his benefits then there are not several acts of faith receiving those several benefits necessary as the condition of our Title to them But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus The Title to Christ himself includeth a title to all these benefits that are made over to the heirs of Promise But on our acceptance of Christ we have title to Christ himself therefore upon our acceptance of Christ as the simple condition we have title to all these benefits Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own son but gave him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things so that all things are given in the gift of Christ or with him Therefore Receiving
not peremptory excluding a Remedy but the Threatning of the Law of Grace is peremptory excluding all further Remedy to all Eternity which I think is a most weighty difference I know this is not much pertinent to our present Controversie but you have made it necessary for me thus to touch it But I shall not digress now to prove it to those that see it not by its own light But I must say that if I should be drawn by you to deny it I should have but a strange Method of Theology in my understanding and should think I let open the door to more Errors then a few So much for the proof of the Thesis The Principal work is yet behind which is to confute the Arguments of the Opponents I call it the Principal work because it is incumbent on them to prove who make the limitation and restriction and add a new proposition to the Doctrine of the Gospel and till they have proved this proposition our ground is good we say that Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is the faith by which we are justified and this is past denyal in the Scriptures They say that Believing in him as a Ransom and Purchaser or apprehending his Righteousness is the only act of faith by which we are justified and not also Believing in him as Lord Teacher Intercessor c. When they have proved the restriction and exclusion as well as we prove our Assertion that excludeth no essential part of faith then the work is done and till then they have done nothing And first before I come to their Arguments I shall consider of that great Distinction which containeth much of their opinion and which is the principall Engine to destroy all our Arguments for the contrary And it is to this purpose Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as King Teacher c. is the fides quae Justificat but it justifieth not qua talis but qua fides in Christum satisfacientem c. Fides qua Justificat must be distinguished from fides quae Justificat A man that hath eyes doth hear and that hath ears doth see but he heareth not as he hath eyes but as he hath ears and he seeth not as he hath ears but as he hath eyes So faith which believeth in Christ as King doth justifie but not qua talis as it believeth in him as King but as it believeth in him or apprehendeth him as our Righteousness Repl. As just and necessary Distinction riddeth us out of the fruitless perplexity of confused disputings so unsound Distinctions especially with seeming subtilty are Engines to deceive and lead us into the dark The last time I answered this Distinction I was so improvident as to say that it it is the general â—heat meaning no more then a Fallacy and thinking the word had signified no worse But Mr. Blake publisheth this Comment on that syllable And as it seems you have met with a pack of Impostors and that of the most Learned in the Land that out of their great Condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great pains you may then judge how it will sound from your self in the ears of others Such insinuations as if it were to breed dissention between those Learned Brethren and my self are not fair dealing First I do not remember one or two at most of all those Brethren that in their Papers to me used that distinction How then can you tell the world in print that it seems I have met with a pack of Impostors even them you mention Did you ever see my Papers or theirs Did they ever tell you that this distinction is in them I solemnly profess it was not in my thoughts so much as to intimate that any one of their Papers was guilty of that distinction But if you will say so what remedy But perhaps I intimate so much in my words In what words when I say that all that I have to do with grant the Antecedent and what 's that to the question in hand many a hundred may grant that this act is the fides quae that assert not the other act to be the fides quâ and allow not the use of the distinction which I resist But perhaps it s my next words that imply it For the general cheat is by the distinction of fides qua and qua c. But sure it cannot be understood that its general with al the world nor general as to all that I have had to do with There is no such thing said or meant by me for then it must extend to all that are of my own mind and I told Mr. Blake enough of the contrary as to the persons he mentioneth by telling him how they owned not the Instrumentality of faith and then they cannot well maintain this use of this distinction It is the general deceit or cheat of all that are deceived by it and of most that in this point oppose me But if Mr. Blake think either that all that vouchsafe me their writings do it by way of opposition when many do it but by explication and reconciliation or that all that oppose me do oppose me in that point he thinks no truer then here he writes Secondly And as he feigneth me to speak of many reverend persons that I never meant so he feigneth me to take them actually for Impostors because I take the distinction for a cheat But is it not possible that it may cheat or deceive themselves though some never utter it to the deceiving of others Much less as impostors with an intention to deceive I would you had never learned this art of confutation Thirdly But I perceive how you would take it if I had applyed this to your self And what is this but plainly to forbid me to dispute with you which I had never done on other terms then for Defence Can I not tell you that your Argument is a Fallacy but you will thus exclaim of me as making you an Impostor why then if you be so tender who may deal with you On the same grounds if I say that your Major or Minor is false you may tell the world I make you a Lyar and I must either say as you say or let you alone lest by contradiction I make you a Lyar or an Impostor Prove that ever I blamed Mr. Crandon for such a passage as this if you can It is not this word thus applyed but other words that I excepted against I will not yet believe it all one to call an Argument or distinction a cheat or fallacy and to call the person a Cheater and Deceiver and that designedly as purposely dissembling his Religion Mr. Blake proceeds And I much marvel that this distinction that everywhere else would pass and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not
do believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him glory that your faith and hope might be in God 2. Cor. 5.21 tells us that he was made sin for us c. but it saith not that our believing thus much only is the full condition of our Interest in his Righteousness But contrarily expresseth it by our own being reconciled to God to which Paul exhorteth Thirdly The Types which you mention were not all the Gospel or Covenant of Grace or Promise then extant If therefore there were any other parts of Gods word then that led them to Receive Christ entirely as the Messiah and particularly as the King and Teacher of his Church and promised life and pardon on this condition your Argument then from the Types alone is vain because they were not the whole word unless you prove that they exclude the rest which you never can And indeed not only the very first promise of the seed of the woman c. doth hold out whole Christ as Priest and Prophet and King as the object of justifying faith but also many and many another in the old Testament And the Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite doth begin with his Kingly office as the object of our faith in the two first chapters which are almost all taken up in proving it Fourthly you confess your self that Christ as Interceding is the object of justifying faith and if you mean it of his Heavenly intercession that was no part of his meritorious obedidience or humiliation It s true indeed that it is for the application or Collation of the fruits of his blood and so is much of his Kingly and Prophetical office too Mr. Blake Secondly That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto that our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat 26 28. A broaken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received Reply First I hope you would not make the world believe that I deny it Did I ever exclude a dying Christ from the object of justifying faith But what strange Arguments are these that are such strangers still to the question you prove the inclusion of faith in Christ dying but do not so much as mention the exclusion of the other acts of faith which is the thing that was incumbent on you Secondly If you say that only is meant by you though not expressed then I further reply that this Argument labouring of the same disease with the last requireth no other answer First The Sacraments being not the whole Gospel you cannot prove your Exclusion from them unless you prove somewhat exclusive in them which you attempt not that I see Secondly If therefore you understand the Minor exclusively as to all other parts of Christs office I deny it and the texts cited say not a word to prove it Thirdly And if they did yet faith may eye a dying Christ only as purchasing Pardon and yet ex parte Christi that act that so eyeth him may not be the only act that is the condition of our Title to a dying Christ or to the pardon purchased Fourthly And yet though it would not serve your turn even ex parte Christi your exclusion is so far from being proved that it s contradicted both by the Sacraments and by Scriptures much more ex parte nostri your excusion of the other acts of faith For First In Baptism its apparent which is appointed for our solemn initiation into a state of Justification which the Lords Supper is not First Christ foundeth it in his Dominion Mat. 28.18 All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore c. Secondly He maketh the very nature of it to be an entering men into a state of Disciples and so engaging them to him as their Master ver 19. Go ye therefore and Disciple or teach all Nations baptizing them Thirdly The words of the Jews to John If thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet why baptizest thou John 1.25 and their flocking to his baptism and the words of Paul I Cor. 14.15 I thank God that I baptized none of you lest any should say that I baptized in my own name do plainly shew that baptizing was then taken as an entering into a state of Disciples And I have before proved that baptism doth list us under Christ the Commander King and Master of the Church Fourthly And therefore the Church hath ever baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with an abrenunciation of the flesh the world and the devil not only as opposite to Christs blood but as opposites to his Kingdom and Doctrine Fifthly And the very water signifieth the spirit of Christ as well as his blood Though I think not as Mr. Mead that it signifieth the spirit only Sixthly And our coming from under the water was to signifie our Resurrection with Christ as Rom. 6. shews So that it is certain that Christ in all parts of his office is propounded in baptism to be the object of our faith and this baptism comprizing all this is said to be for the Remission of sin Secondly And though the Lords supper suppose us justified yet he understandeth not well what he doth that thinks that Christ only as dying is there propounded to our faith For First In our very receiving we profess Obedience to Christ as King that hath enjoyned it by his Law Secondly And to Christ our Teacher that hath taught us thus to do Thirdly The signs themselves are a visible word of Christ our Teacher and teach us his sufferings promises our duty c. Fourthly By taking eating and drinking we renew our Covenant with Christ And that Covenant is made with him not only as Priest but as the Glorified Lord and King of the Church On his part the thing promised which the Sacrament sealeth is not that Christ will dye for us for that 's done already but that Christ will actually pardon us on the account of his merits And this he doth as King and that he will sanctifie preserve strengthen and glorifie us all which he doth as King though he purchased them as a sacrifice On our part we deliver up our selves to him to be wholly his even his Disciples and Subjects as well as pardoned ones Fifthly Yea the very bread and wine eaten and drank do signifie our spiritual Union and Communion with Jesus who is pleased to become one with us as that bread and wine is one with our substance And surely it is to Christ as our Head that we are United and not only as dying for us and as to our Husband who is most dearly to be loved by us and is to rule us and we to be subject to him being made bone of his bone and flesh of
his flesh Ephe. 5.23 24 25 30. Sixthly We are to do it as in remembrance of his death so also in expectation of his comming which will be in Kingly Glory when he will drink with us the fruit of the Vine new in the Kingdome of his Father Object But Christ doth not pardon sin in all these respects Answ First But in the Sacrament he is represented to be believed in entirely in all these respects Secondly And he pardoneth as King though he merit it as a sacrifice And as his Sacrifice and Merit are the cause of all that following so therefore it is specially represented in the Sacrament not excluding but including the rest Thirdly Believing in Christ as King and Prophet even as his offices respect his Honor and our sanctity may be as truly the condition of our Justification as believing in his blood Mr. Blake As the spirit of God guides faith so it must go to God for propitiation and â—â—tonement But the Holy Ghost guides faith to go the blood of Christ for attonement Rom. 3.25 5.9 Eph. 1.7 1 John 1.7 Reply Concedo totum The conclusion can be but this therefore faith must go to the blood of Christ for attonement Who ever questioned this I But your Thesis which you set at the Head of your Arguments was Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which is little kin to any of your Arguments But in the explication you have here at last the term Only and therefore I may take that to be supposed in the Argument But then with that Addition I deny your Minor The texts mentioned say nothing to prove it Rom. 3.25 hath no only in it nor any thing exclusive of the other acts of Christ And if it had yet it would not follow that all other acts of our faith were excluded As his blood is the meritorious cause and so the foundation of all the benefits and so all the Applying Causes are supposed in the mention of it and not excluded so are all other acts of our faith in the mention of that act Rom. 5.9 saith not that we are justified only by his blood Nâ—r is it any adding to the Scripture to add more unless you can prove that these texts are the whole Scripture or that the other Scriptures add no more Ephe. 1 7. and 1 John 1.7 do neither of them exclude either the other acts of Christ or other acts of faith Nay John seems to make somewhat else the condition on our part then the belief in that blood only when he saith there If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Or if you think this if denoteth but a sign yet other texts will plainly prove more To conclude If I were to go only to the blood of Christ for atonement yet it would not follow that going to that blood only for it is the only act of Faith on which Justification is promised or given me in the Gospel as is before declared Mr. Blake You demand Will you exclude his Obedience Resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvell at the question If I exclude these I exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in Obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 his Resurrection was his freedom from the bands of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His Intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but by merit He presents his blood as the high Priest in the Holy of Holies Repl. It was the thing I had to do to prove that Rom. 3.24 and those other texts are not exclusive of all but his blood and that the word Only is no more meant then it is expressed in them And now you grant it me And needs must do it while Scripture tells us that by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Rom. 5.19 and that he is Risen for our Justification Rom. 4 â—5 and that Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ver 24. and It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh Intercession for us Rom. 8 33 34. he that believeth all these texts will not add only to the first at least if he understand them for they do not contradict each other Well! but you marvell at my question I am glad of that Are we so well agreed that you marvell at my supposition of this difference To satisfie you my question implyed this Argument If the Resurrection Intercession c. be not in those texts excluded nor faith in them then we may not add only to interpret them but c. Ergo. But let us hear the reasons of your marveling First As to Obedience you say His shedding of blood was in Obedience Answer But though all blood-shed was in Obedience yet all Obedience was not by blood-shed nor suffering neither And the text Rom. 5.19 seems to speak of Obedience as Obedience and not only as in blood shed Secondly You say His Resurrection was his freedom c. Ans But Suffering is one thing and freedom from suffering is another thing I herefore faith to our justification must eye Christs conquest and freedom from death as well as his death it self Moreover Resurrection was an act of Power and his Entrance on his Kingdom and not a meer act of Priesthood Nor will you ever prove that faith to Justification must only look at the Resurrection as connoting the death from which he riseth Thirdly You say His Intercession is founded on his blood c. Answer So is his Kingdom and Lordship Rom. 14 9. Mat. 28.18 Phil. 2.9 10. It seems then faith in order to Justification must not only look at Christs blood but that which is founded on it His Government in Legislation Judgement Execution is all founded in his blood c. because he hath drank of the brook in the way therefore did he lift up the Head Psalme 110.7 You add He Interceeds by Merit Answer Not by new purchasing Merit but by the virtue of his former Merit and the collation of the effects of it from the Father And so he Reigneth and Governeth both by virtue of former Merit and for the applying that Merit and attaining of its Ends. Whereas therefore you say If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood It is a weighty Answer And the like you may say also of his Kingly and Prophetical office The operation of them are so woven and twisted together by infinite wisdom that all do harmoniously concur to the attainment of the ends of each one and if you lay by one you lay by all you exclude Christs blood as to the end of Justification if you include not his Kingly and Prophetical
Cartwright cont Rhem. in loc For if the Reward should be given according to works God should be a Debtor unto man But it is absurd to make God a Debtor to man 2. He speaketh not of that Reward that ignorant men challenge to themselves but of the Reward that God should in justice give if men had deseerved it by their works 12. Hemiâ—gius even a Lutheran supposeth the Argument to be thus Imputatio gratuita non est operantis merces justitia credentis est imputatio gratuita ergo justitia credentis non est operantis merces Major probatur per contrarium Merces operanti id est ei qui aliquid operibus promeretur datur ex debito Probatio haec per concessionem Rhetoricam intelligenda est Nequaquam enim Paulus sentit quod quisquam ex debito fiat justus revera sed quae sit natura rerum indicat Imputare est aliquid gratia conferre non ex debito tribuere Merces proprie est quod debebatur ex merito hoc est Debiti solutio Yea in his blow at the Majorists he confesseth the truth 8. Evertitur corum dogma qui clamant opera necessaria ad salutem quae salus cum à Justificatione separari nequit non habet alias causas aut merita quam ipsa Justificatio Hoc tamen fatendum est quod opera necessariò requirantur in Justificatis ut iter intermedium non ut causa aut merita 13. Mich. Ragerus a Lutheran in loc Imputatio fidei opponitur imputationi ex merito imputatio fidei fit secundum gratiam E. fides in negotio Justificationis non consideratur ut opus morale quid enim per modum operis imputatur secundum debitum meritoriè imputatur Et qui operatur sive operans renatus sit sive non dummodo eâ intentione operetur ecque fine ut mercedem reportet opera sua censorio Dei judicio opposita velit 14. In like manner Georg Calixtus a Lutheran in loc pag. 26.28 c. To these I might add many other Protestant Expositors and the votes of abundance of Polemical Divines who tell the Papists that in Pauls sense it s all one to be justified by works to be justified by the Law and to be justified by merits But this much may suffice for the vindication of that Text and to prove that all works do not make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace but only meritorious mercenary works and not those of gratitude c. beforenamed Treat ibid. The second Argument may be from the peculiar and express difference that the Scripture giveth between faith and other graces in respect of Justification So that faith and good works are not to be considered as concurrent in the same manner though one primarily the other secondarily so that if faith when it s said to Justifie doth it not as a condition but in some other peculiar notion which works are not capable of then we are not Justified by works as well as faith Now it s not lightly to be passed over that the Scripture still useth a peculiar expression of faith which is incommunicable to other graces Thus Rom. 3.25 Remission of sins is through faith in his blood Rom. 4.5 Faith is counted for Righteousness Rom. 5.1 Galatians â— 16 c. Answer First This is nothing to the Question and deserves no further answer The Question is not now whether faith and works justifie in the same manner that 's but a consequent rightly explained of another thing in question your self hath here made it the question whether Works be Conditions of Justification And that which I affirmed is before explained I grant that if faith justifie not as a condition but proxime in any other respect then Faith and Repentance c. justifie not in the same manner so that the sameness of their Interest in the general notion of a condition supposeth faith to be a condition but if you can prove that it is not I shall grant the difference which you prove Now it is not our question here whether faith be a condition or an Instrument but whether other works as you choose to call them or humane acts be conditions Secondly Scripture taketh not faith in the same sense as my Opposers do when it gives it the peculiar expressions that you mention Faith in Pauls sense is a Belief in Jesus Christ in all the respects essential to his person and office and so a hearty Acceptance of him for our Teacher Lord and Saviour Saviour I say both from the guilt and power of sin and as one that will lead us by his word and spirit into Possession of eternal Glory which he hath purchased So that it includeth many acts of Assent and a Love to our Saviour and desire of him and it implyeth self-denial and renouncing our own righteousness and all other Saviours and a sense of our sin and misery at least Antecedents or concomitants and sincere Affiance and Obedience in gratitude to our Redeemer as necessary consequents And this faith is set by Paul in opposition to the bare doing of the works of Moses Law and consequently of any other works with the same intention as separated from Christ who was the end and life of it or at least co-ordinate with him and so as the immediate matter of a legal Righteousness and consequently as mercenary and valuable in themselves or meritorious of the Reward This is Pauls faith But the faith disputed for by my Opponents is the Act of recumbency or Affiance on Christ at Justifier or Priest which they call the Apprehension of Christs righteousness and this as opposed to the Acceptance of Christ as our Teacher and King our Husband Head c. further then these contain his Priesthood and opposed to Repentance to the love of our Saviour to denying our own righteousness confessing our sins and confessing Christ to be our only Saviour Thankfulness for free grace c. all which are called works by these men and excluded from being so much as Conditions attending faith in our Justification or Remission of sin The case may be opened by this similitude A Physitian cometh to a populous City in an Epidemical Plague There is none can scape without his help he is a stranger to them and they have received false informations and apprehensions of him that he is but a mountebank and deceiver though indeed he came of purpose in love and compassion to save their lives having a most costly receipt which will certainly cure them He offereth himself to be their Physitian and freely to give them his Antidote and to cure and save them if they will but consent that is if they will take him for their Physitian and thankfully take his medicine His enemies disswade the people from believing in him and tell them that he is a Deceiver and that if they will but stir themselves and work and use such dyet and medicines as they tell them of
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
so desire me not to take it ill to be called an erring shepherd As if I did not know my Proneness to err and were not conscious of the weakness of my understanding or as if the expressions of so sincere love did need excuse or as if I were so tender and brittle as not to endure so gentle a touch as if my confidence of your love were Plumea non Plumbea and would be blown away with such a friendly breath Certainly Sir your sharper smiting would be precious Balm so it light not on the Truth but me I am not so unctuous nitrous or sulfureous as to be kindled with such a gratefull warmth My Intellect were too much active and my affections too passive if by the reception of the beams of such favourable expressions my soul as by a Burning-Glass should be set on fire I am oft ashamed and amazed to think of the horrid intolerable Pride of many learned Pious Divines who though they have no worse Titles then Viri docti reverendi celeberrimi yet think themselves abused and unsufferably vilified if any word do but acrius pungere or any Argument do faucibus premere witness Rivet and Spanhemius late angry censure of Amyraldus Can we be fit Preachers and Patterns of meekness and humility to our people who are so notoriously proud that we can scarce be spoke to My knowledge of your eminent humility and gentelness hath made me also the freer in my speeches here to you which therefore do need more excuse then yours And I accordingly intreat you if any thing have passed that is unmannerly according to the natural eagerness and vehemency of my temper that you will be pleased to excuse what may be excused and the rest to remit and cover with love assuring your self it proceeds not from any diminution of his high esteem of you and love to you who acknowledgeth himself unfeignedly so very much below you as to be unworthy to be called Your fellow-servant RICHARD BAXTER June 28. 1650. Kederminster Postscript DEar Sir while I was waiting for a messenger to send this by Master Brooksby acquaints me that you wisht him to tell me that I must expect no more in writing from you My request is that whereas you intimated in your first a purpose of writing somewhat against me on this subject hereafter you would be pleased to do it in my life time that I may have the benefit of it if you do it satisfactorily and if not may have opportunity to acquaint you with the reasons of my dissent Scribunt Asinium Pollionem dixisse aliquando se parasse orationes contra Plancum quas non nisi post mortem esset editurus Plancum respondisse cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari ut Lud. Vives ex Plinio Dr. Humfred ex illo Jesuit 2. p. 640. Also I request that if possible you would proceed on such terms as your Divinity may not wholly depend upon meer niceties of Philosophy For I cannot think such points to be neer the foundation Or at least that you will clearly and fully confirm your Philosophical grounds For as I find that your Doctrine of a Passive Instrumentality of the Act of faith and that in a Moral reception of righteousness which is but a relation yet calling it Physical is the very bottom of the great distance between us in the point of justification So I am of opinion that I may more freely dissent from a brother in such tricis philosophicis then in an Article of faith Especially having the greatest Philosophers on my side and also seeing how little accord there is among themselves that they are almost so many men so many minds and when I find them professing as Combacchius in praefâ—ad Phys that they write against their own sense to please others quod maximam opinionum in lib. contentarum partem non jam probaret Aristotelem non esse normam veritates and wishing ut tandem aliquando exurgat aliquis qui perfectiora nobis principia monstret and to conclude as he salsitatem opinionum sententiarum scientiarum imperfectionemâ—jam pridem video sed in veritate docenda deficio Et Nulli aut paucis certe minus me satisfacturum ac mihi ipsi sat scio And how many new Methods and Doctrines of Philosophy this one age hath produced And I am so far sceptical my self herein as to think with Scaliger ibid. cit Nos instar vulpis à Ciconia delusae vitreum vas lambere pultem haud attingere But I believe not that in any Master point in Divinity God hath left his Church at such an utter loss nor hanged the faith and salvation of every honest ordinary Christian upon meer uncertain Philosophical speculations I do not think that Paul knew what a Passive instrument was much less an act that was physically passive in its instrumentality in a moral causation You must give me leave to remain confident that Paul built not his Doctrine of justification on such a philosophical foundation till you have brought one Scripture to prove that faith is an instrument and such an instrument which can neither be done Especially when the same Paul professeth that he came not to declare the Testimony of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he determined not to know any thing among them save Iesus Christ and him crucified and that his speech and preaching was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so their faith might not stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he spoke the mysteries of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2. I am past doubt therefore that to thrust such Philosophical dictates into our Creed or Confession and make them the very touchstone of Orthodoxness in others is a dangerous presumptuous adding to the Doctrine of the Gospel and a making of a new Doctrine of justification and salvation to the great wrong of the Prophet and Lawgiver of the Church I was even now reading learned Zanchius proof that believers before Christ did by their faith receive Christs flesh or humane nature as promised and future as well as the Divine and his heavy censure of the contrary Doctrine as vile and unsufferable which occasioneth me to add this Quere Whether that believing was a physical reception when the object had no real being or did not exist Or whether meer morral reception by Accepting Choosing Consenting as a people receiving the Kings Heires for their future Governours before they are born or as we receive a man for our King who dwels far out of our sight Or as Princes wives do use to take them both for their Husbands and Soveraign Lords even in their own Native Countrey before they come to sight of the man the match being both driven on and made and the marriage or contract performed and imperfectly solemnized at that distance by an Embassador or Delegate just so do we receive Christ whose humane nature is far off and his Divine out
made partakers of Christ and his Righteousness by a meer resultancy from the Promise of the Gospel 5. Who denyeth that we have Faith and Repentance before Justification Object 3. But according to this Doctrine we are justified before we are justified For he that is Righteous is constituted just and so is justifiable in Judgement which is to be justified in Law Answ Very true But we are as is said made just or justified but with a particular and not an universal Righteousness which will not donominate the person simply a Righteous or justified person we are so far cured of our former Infidelity and Impenitency that we are true penitent Believers before our sins are pardoned by the Promise and so we are in order of nature not of time first justifiable against the false Accusation that we are impenitent Vnbelievers before we are justifiable against the true accusation of all our sins and desert of Hell He that by inherent Faith and Repentance is not first justifiable against the former false charge cannot by the blood and merits of Christ be justifiable against the latter true accusation For Christ and Pardon are given by the Covenant of Grace to none but penitent Believers Object 4. By this you confound Justification and Sanctification for inherent Righteousness belongs not to Justification but to Sanctification Answ Your Affirmation is no proof and my distinguishing them is not confounding them Inherent Righteousness in its first seed and acts belongs to Sanctification as its Begining or first part or root And to Justification and Pardon as a Means or Condition But Inherent Righteousness in its strength and progress belongs to Sanctification as the Matter of it and to our final Justification in Judgement as part of the means or condition but no otherwise to our first Justification then as a necessary fruit or consequent of it Object 5. By this means you make Sanctification to go before Justification as a Condition or means to it when Divines commonly put it after Answ 1. Mr. Pemble and those that follow him put Sanctification before all true Justification though they call Gods immanent eternal Act a precedent Justification 2. The case is easie if you will not confound the verbal part of the controversie with the Real What is it that you call Sanctification 1. If it be the first special Grace in Act or Habit so you will confess that Sanctification goeth first For we repent and believe before we are pardoned or justified 2. If it be any further degrees or fruits or exercise of Grace then we are agreed that Justification goeth before it 3. If it be both begining and progress faith and obedience that you call Sanctification then part of it is before Justification and part after All this is plain and that which I think we are agreed in But here I am invited to a consideration of some Arguments of a new Opponent Mr. Warner in a book of the Object and Office of Faith What he thought it his Duty to oppose I take it to be my Duty to defend which of us is guided by the light of God I must leave to the illuminated to judge when they have compared our Evidence Mr. W. I now come to shew that both these kinds of Righteousness Legal and Evangelical are not absolutely necessary to Justification I do not undertake the Negative and will endeavour to prove it by these demonstrations Argument 1. If things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascribed to the sme person or action then both these kinds of Righteousness are not absolutely necessary to make up our Justification But things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascribed to the same person or actions Therefore The sequell is thus proved by Paul If it be of works it is no more of Grace if of Grace then it is no more of works What are therefore these two kinds of Righteousness but contradictory to each other And therefore it seemeth illogical Theologie to predicate them of the same person or act c. 12. pag. 154. Answ Reader I crave thy pardon for troubling thee with the Confutation of such Impertinencies that are called Demonstrations It is I that have the bigger part of the trouble But how should I avoid it without wrong to the Truth Seeing would you think it there are some Readers that cannot discern the vanity of such Arguings without Assistance 1. What a gross abuse is this to begin with to conclude that these two sorts of Righteousness are not necessary to make up our Justification when the Question was only whether they are necessary to our Justification Making up expresseth the proper causality of the constitutive causes matter and form and not of the efficient or final much less the Interest of all other means such as a condition is So that I grant him his conclusion taking Justification as we now do Our Faith or Repentance goeth not to make it up And yet on the by I shall add that if any man will needs take Justification for Sanctification or as the Papists do comprehensively for Sanctification and Pardon both as some Protestant Divines think it is used in some few Texts in that large sense our Faith and Repentance are part of our justifying Righteousness But I do not so use the word Though Philip Codurcus have writ at large for it 2. I deny his Consequence And how is it proved By reciting Pauls words Rom. 116. Which contain not any of the terms in the question Paul speaks of Election we of Justification though that difference I regard not Paul speaks of works and we speak of Evangelical Faith and Repentance In a word therefore I answer The works that Paul speaks of are inconsistent with Grace in Justification though not contradictory but contrary what ever Mr. W. say but Faith and Repentance are not those works and therefore no contrariety is hence proved Here is nothing therefore but a rash Assertion of Mr. W. to prove these two sorts of Righteousness contradictory Be judge all Divines and Christians upon earth Did you ever hear before from a Divine or Christian that imputed and inherent Righteousness or Justification and Sanctification or Christs fulfilling the Law for us and our believing the Gospel and repenting were contradictory in themselves Do not all that believe the Scripture believe that we have a personal Righteousness a true Faith and Repentance and must fulfill the Conditions of the Promise and that in respect to these the Scripture calls us Righteous as is before proved Mr. W. 2. If the person justified is of himself ungodly then Legal and Evangelical Righteousness are not both absolutely necessary to our Justification But the person justified considering him in the act of justifying is so therefore The Sequel is undenyable because he who is ungodly is not Legally Righteous and that the person now to be justified is ungodly is express Scripture Rom. 4.5 But to him that worketh not but believeth in him that just fieth the ungodly
Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not I should raign over them bring them hither c. saith Amesius Medul l. 2. cap. 5. § 48. Opponuntur ista Infidelitas c. fidei non tantum qua tollunt Assensum illum Intellectus qui est ad fidem necessarius sed etiam qua inferunt includunt privationem illius Elections apprehensionis fidei quae est in Voluntate Surely an unwillingness to accept Christ for our Lord and Saviour is no small part of the condemning sin which we therefore call the rejecting of Christ The treading him under foot Neglecting so great Salvation Not willing to come to Christ for life Making light of him when they are invited to the marriage Mat. 22. and making excuses Not-kissiing the son Psal 2. with many the like which import the Wills refusal of Christ himself and not only its unwillingness to believe the Truth of the Promise or Declaration of the Gospel To your tenth Objection I answer by denying the consequence we speak of the soul as rational and not as sensitive or vegetative When the understanding Will receive Christ the whole soul doth it that is every faculty or the soul by a full entire motion in its several Actings to the Object presented both as true and good Your Joy Hope Fear are in the sensitive And Love as a Passion and as commonly taken And for Memory take it for an act of the Understanding or of Understanding and Imagination conjunct or for a third faculty as please your self it will not breed any difficulty in the case But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of Christ or any Object as Good I much question I take it rather for the shunning of an evil then the Reception of Good So much for your Objections I will next as impartially as I can consider your Answers to what I laid down for the proof of the Point in Question But first I must acknowledge that I have given you and others great advantage against the Doctrine of that Book by the immethodicalness and neglect of Art and not giving the Arguments in form which I then thought not so necessary as now I perceive it is for I was ready to yield wholly to Gibeeufs reasons against formal arguing Praefat. ante lib. 2. de Libertate The present expectation of death caused me to make that haste which I now repent yet though I see some oversights in the manner of expression I see no cause to change my mind in the Doctrine of it Also I must desire you to remember here that the proof lyeth on your part and not on mine Affirmanti incumbit probatio It is acknowledged by almost all that fides qua Justificat Justifying faith is a Receiving of Christ as Lord and not only as Saviour or Justifier And you and I are agreed on it that Faith justifieth not as an Instrument but as a Condition so that they who will go further here and maintain that yet Faith justifieth only As it Receiveth Christ as Justifier or as Saviour and not as King must prove what they say If I prove 1. that Faith justifieth as the Condition on performance whereof the Gift is conferred 2. And that this Faith which is the Condition is the Accepting of Christ as Christ or the Anointed King and Saviour both which are yielded me I must needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Christ as King doth as truly Justifie as the Receiving him as Priest or Justifier Yet I had rather not say that either Justifies because 1. it is no Scripture phrase 2. and seemeth to import an Efficiency but rather that we are justified by it which imports here but a conditionality and is the Scripture phrase Till you have proved your exclusion of faith in one respect from the Justifying Office and your confinement of it to the other my proof stands good I give you the entire condition and ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum multó minus dividendum And though those that assert the proper Instrumentality of faith in Justifying or else the meer natural conditionality may have something to say for their Division though with foul absurdities Yet what you can say who have escaped those conceits I cannot imagine Me thinks if faith Justifie as the condition of the Grant or Covenant and this condition be the Receiving of Christ as Lord and Saviour it should be impossible to exclude the receiving Christ as King from Justifying till you first exclude it from the said conditionality A Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia To Justifie therefore As the condition on which the Promise gives Christ and with him Justification must needs infer that we are justified by all whatsoever hath such a conditionality Yet as I said before when we intend to express not only or principally the Act of the Receiver but also or principally the Grace of the Giver then it is a fitter phrase to say we are Justified by faith in his Blood or by Receiving Christ the Saviour and Justifier because it fulliest and fitliest expresseth that Grace which we intend and thus Paul oft doth So that they who distinguish between Fides quae Justificat and Fides qua Justificat and admit that Act into the former which they exclude from the latter must prove what they say Fides qua justificat non Recipit Christum vel ut Regem vel sacerdotem sed tantum Justificat i. e. Qua est Conditio non est Receptio Nec qua Recipit Justificat i. e. Qua Receptio non est Conditio Materia forma non sunt confundenda Actus fidei est quasi materia vel Aptitudo tantum ad officium conditionalitatis Distinctio igitur ipsa est inepta Now to your Answers Pardon this prolixity First I must tell you that by that phrase the whole soul I mean the entire motion of the soul by Understanding and Willing to its Object both as True and Good For I know the whole soul may be said to understand in every Intellectual Action and to will in every act of willing But when it only understands or Assents and not willeth it doth not Act fully according to its Power nor according to the nature of its Object when the Goodness is neglected and the Truth only apprehended And it is not a compleat motion seeing the Acts of the understanding are but introductory or preparatory to those of the Will where the motion of the Rational soul is compleat And so my Argument stands thus If Justifying faith be the Act both of the understanding and the Will then it is not one single act only But c. Ergo c. Prob. Anteced Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ but Christ is Received by the Understanding and Will by the former incompleatly by the latter compleatly therefore Justifying faith is the Acting both of the Understanding and Will Probatur Minor Christ must be Received as Good and not only
this what I grant to you that our Justification when first begun here is by faith supposing Repentance before and without the practice of obedience and then see how near we are The fifth Argument which you mention is grounded on the common Maxim Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit and runs thus If the Scripture in propounding to man the adaequate Object of justifying Faith Christ do not divide Christ and say In believing him to be a Priest your faith is justifying but not in believing him to be King or Prophet or Head but propoundeth Christ undivided as this Object then must not we distinguish or divide but take Christ entirely for the object of justifying Faith But the Scripture doth not divide or distinguish in this case therefore we must not It is Christ that must be Received and believed in but a Saviour and not a King is not Christ It is Christ as Christ His very Name signifieth as directly his Kingly office at least as his Priestly And if you confess that the same act of Faith at the same instant Receives Christ both as Priest and King then I shall stay my assent to your opinion till you bring me the Scripture that saith it is faith in this notion and not in that which justifies God speaks plainly that whosoever believeth shall be justified from all things c. And you confess this Believing is the Receiving Christ for King and Priest and that it justifies as a condition and doth not your unproved distinction overthrow this again The sixth Argument which you mention runs thus If Scripture particularly propound Christ as King as the Object of justifying Faith then Christ as King is the object of it But Scripture doth so Ergo c. I have named you some places where it so doth a little before The seventh is to the same purpose with the fifth You name two Texts as proving that Scripture tyeth Justification to the Receipt of Christ as Priest only But there is not a word in the Texts to that end Rom 3.25 speaks of Faith in Christs blood but not a word for excluding Faith in his Obedience Resurrection Intercession or Power much less excluding our consent to his full Authority or Office The word Only is not in the Text. You may as well say that it is only by faith in his Name and so not in his blood because other Texts say it is by faith in his Name See Acts 13.16 The other Text Rom. 5.9 speaks neither a word of Faith nor excludes Christs obedience by which many are made Righteous nor Resurrection for he Rose again for our Justification nor his Intercession for who shall condemn us it is Christ that died yea rather that Rose again and is even at the right hand of God who also maketh Intercession for us Rom. 8.34 And all these parts of Christs Priestly Office must be excluded if you will affix the word Only to the Text which saith we are justified by his blood Indeed you make so a quick dispatch in the Controversie about the active and passive Righteousness The same answer serves to what you say in the eighth and ninth and tenth being the same with that you say here I marvail how you would form an Argument from 2 Cor. 5 21. Gal. 2.21 I Where you say Obedience is not an essential part of Faith I yield it willingly taking Faith properly and strictly and not in the largest improper sense But that it justifies as immediatly as it Receiveth him as King as it doth in Receiving him as Priest I shall take for proved till you prove the lawfulness here of dividing Christ and Faith or distinguishing and appropriating justifying to one respect and excluding another in the same act of Believing and the same Object Christ And to what is said before let me yet add this 1. If Christ be not received as a true compleat Saviour except he be Received as King then Faith justifies not as it Receiveth him for Priest only for you here confess that he justifies as he is Received as a Saviour But the Antecedent is evident for as King he saveth his people from sin and Satan and all their enemies Ergo c. 2. If Christ as King do justifie us then he must be Received as King to Justification But the former is undenyable Mat. 25. c. Ergo. c. The Consequence is raised on your own Grounds The eleventh Argument as you number doth suppose several points very weighty with me which I undertake to make good which do overthrow the unsound grounds which the contrary minded go upon 1. I suppose that Faith justifieth principally ex Voluntate ordinantis and not ex natura actus though it have Aptioudinem ad officium in ipsa rei natura 2. I suppose Christ is first received by Faith and his Benefits come with him and in order of nature are after the Receiving of him These things being supposed it strongly perswades me that the entertainment of Christ as King was never intended by God to be excluded from the conditional Interest in Justification when I find in Scripture that his own Dominion was an end of his Death Resurrection and Reviving and that God doth so insist on this point to bring the world to subjection to Christ Psalm 2. c. And that the honouring and advancing of God the Father and the Mediator God-man is the most Noble excellent use of our faith Is it then any whit probable that it is Gods meaning to exclude this respect of the act from any conditionality herein Shall I again tell you the true ground of mens mistake as I think in this Point They look on Faith as if it were a natural Reception and did make the thing received theirs immediatly and formally as it is such a Receiving ex natura rei and not as it is Receptio moralis whose effect depends wholly on and its efficacy or Interest is derived directly from the Will Constitution or Ordination of the Legislator and Donor and so doth what it doth as a condition in Law-sence And I pray search whether in this Question you do not confound your Notions ex parte objecti and ex parte Actus Let me conclude all by the Illustration of my former similitude A woman condemned for Treason is Ransomed by the Prince who Decreeth that if she will Believe that he is her Redeemer and will take him as her Master Redeemer and Husband she shall be Delivered and made his Princess else not Now the question is what is the condition of this womans deliverance and Dignity Is the condition of her Deliverance and Pardon the taking him only under the Notion of a Pardoner or Deliverer And is the condition of her Dignity only the Taking him as a Prince who is Rich and Honourable No. The condition on her part is the Taking him entirely to all these uses or in all these Respects and more even the marrying him and
and Goodness to be all one and the Understanding and Will for all one takes also Assent and Affiance for all one but I shall go on the supposition that his singular opinion is commonly disallowed however the Scotists and many others deny the real Distinction of Faculties The common Vote of Protestant Divines is that Faith is in both Faculties the Intellect and Will and hath for its object the Entity of Christs person and the Verity of the Gospel and the goodness of Christ and his benefits offered which Faith accepteth Davenants Words are plain and true Determ Qu. 38. pag. 174. In actu fidei justificantis tota anima se convertit ad causam justificantem And qu. 37. pag. 166. Fides illa quam Scriptura agnoscit habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis Intellectus Neque nobis absurdum sed valde consentaneum videtur actum illum quo tota anima purificatur justificatur ad totam animam pertinere ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium in voluntate complementum Argument 1. The Object of this Faith is both Truth and Goodness Therefore it is the act both of the Intellect and the Will That Truth is the Object of it is evident 1. In that the Metaphysical Verity of Christs person is the Object of it or else Christ were not the Object of it 2. In that the moral Verity of the Gospel 1. as revealing Christ 2. as promising pardon is the object of it as is confest and the Scripture doth so plentifully declare that it were superfluous to cite the words That goodness is the object of it appeareth 1. In that Christ as Redeemer Mediator Saviour is the object of it and that is Christ as necessary and good to us It is Christ for our forgiveness Justification and Salvation and so under the formal notion of good 2. In that it is a Promise as a Promise Testament Grant or Deed of Gift that is the Object by it And it is Essential to these to be good to us as well as True and the Truth is but for the good 3. In that it is Pardon Justification and Life eternal finally that are the object of it which as such and as offered to us are good If I thought these things needed proof I would give you more Argument 2. The Scripture revealeth to us that this Faith is the Act both of the Intellect and the Will therefore it is so That it is the act of the Intellect is so plain in Scripture that I should accuse my self of wearying you with needless work if I should go about to prove it The Papists are right enough in thus much and Dr. Downame de Justific and against Pemble in Append. to Covenant of Grace hath proved it at large That it is an act of the Will our Divines have fully proved against the Papists in many a full Discourse 1. From the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Affiance and such an Affiance as is the act of the Will as well as of the Intellect 2. Because the Scripture often putteth Willing as equipollent to Believing in Revel 22.17 Whosoever Will let him take the water of Life freely where Willing and Taking are both acts of the Will and the faith in question so in other places 3. The Scripture calleth it by the name of Receiving Christ Joh. 1.12 Col. 2.6 which is the Acceptance or consent of the Will 4. The Scripture often makes Faith to be the Internal covenanting and closure of the heart with Christ which is the act of the Will and therefore it perswadeth with the Will to this end and accuseth men as unwilling and calleth them Refusers Neglecters Slighters Rejecters Despisers of Christ that are Unbelievers privatively I trouble you not to cite the Texts as being needless and done by many Besides that as in the former Argument the Promise Christ Pardon Life and other good things as good are frequently made the Object of Faith Argument 3. The Veracity of God is the formal Object of Faith But the Veracity of God is his Goodness or participateth at least as much of his Goodness as of his Wisdom and his Power therefore the Goodness of Good is the formal Object of Faith and consequently it is an act of the Will God cannot lye because he is perfectly good wise and Powerfull Object But say some Papists All these acts that you mention here are Love and not Faith Faith doth but assent and Love consenteth or accepteth Answ 1. Do you not your selves call it fides formata charitate And why then may not we call it faith 2. The Scripture calleth it Faith in the phrases formentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore it is Faith 3. Though sometimes in other cases the Apostle distinguish Faith Hope and Love yet when he speaketh of Faith as justifying and as the form of a Christian he comprehendeth Love to Christ as Saviour in it and a confidence in him such as in common Language we call Hope As Love signifieth the Passion of the soul it may be a consequent but as it is but the velle Christum beneficia oblata so it is faith it self as Maccovius and Chamier have truly told the Papists It was a faith in Christ though beginning to sink that 's expressed Luk. 24.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel Our Translators have put we Trusted for we Hoped because they thought the signification the same or else they would not sure have done it And when the Apostle saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11.1 If we may denominate the act from the Object we may see that he there makes Faith and Hope to be co-essential And when Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ our Hope it seems hope there is but an act of Faith And so 2 Cor. 1.10 1 Tim. 4.10 To Hope in God or Christ or put our Hope in him seemeth to me all one as to put our Trust in him for future Mercy which is Faith To which is opposed 1 Tim. 6.17 putting our Hope in riches so 1 Cor. 15.19 to have Hope in Christ so the Septuagint Psal 42.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hope in God is a Complication of Faith and Hope in one word and translated by us Trust in God 4. Though the Willing Consent or Acceptance of an offered Benefit have truly somewhat of Love in it yet Love is not the proper name of that Act. Every Volition is not usually called Love Prop. 3. It is not not only God the Father nor only Christ the Redeemer nor only the Promise nor only pardon or Righteousness or Heaven that is the object of that faith which Paul opposeth to works in Jusification Argument 1. If many or all these art so linked together that to believe one of them as revealed in Scripture is to believe more or all then it
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.
shall not perish but have everlasting life He that believeth on him is not condemned Not to be condemned is to be justified Condemnation and Justification are opposed in Scripture Rom. 8 33 4. Here therefore a saving faith and a justifying are made all one And it is Believing in Christ without exclusion of any essential part that is this faith It is Believing in the Name of the only begotten Son of God ver 18. which is more then to believe his Ransom Thirdly John 3.35 36. The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him To have Gods wrath abide on him to be unjustified And the unbelievers opposed to the Believers before mentioned are such as Believe not the son which phrase cannot possibly be limited to the affiance in his blood It is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often translated Disobedient signifying saith Willet both unbelieving and disobedient but rather Disobedient properly it is unperswadable But of this more anon And the faith here mentioned is Believing on the son entirely without exclusion of any essential acts nay expresly including the act in question by shewing that it is faith in Christ as Lord into whose hands the Father hath given all things as the connexion of these words to the foregoing doth manifest Fourthly Rom. 1.16 17 18. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth for therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith where saving and justifying faith is made the same and that is to be a believer of the Gospel or in Christ without limitation to any one essential part of it Fifthly Rom. 3.22 Even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe Here it is faith in Jesus Christ by which we are justified which therefore includeth all that is essential to it Object Vers 25. It is said to be by faith in his blood Answ 1. But there is not a syllable confining it to faith in his blood alone It saith not by faith only in his blood Secondly The ordinary course of Scripture is to call it by that name faith in Jesus Christ which comprehendeth all that 's essential to it But sometime upon special occasions it s denominated from some one notable act or part And that is when it is the scope of the text to denote more the distinct Interest of that part of Christs Office which is related to that act of faith then any sole Interest of that act of faith it self And so the Apostle here mentioneth faith in his blood as a special act because he now draweth them especially to observe that blood which is the Object of it and in other places he instanceth in other acts of faith but commonly speaks of it entirely And I think the Opponents will grant that as only is not here expressed so neither is it implyed for then it would exclude also faith in the rest of his satisfactory Humiliation or at least in his active Righteousness if not in his Person or Relation of which more anon So vers 18.30 31. It s called faith entirely or without restriction by which we are justified and therefore none of the essentials are excluded But it would be too tedious to recite the particular Texts It s known that by faith and by believing in Christ without exclusion or limitation is the common please of Scripture when it speaks how we are justified as many further be seen Rom. 5.1 2. 9.32 Gal. 2.16 we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ and by believing in Jesus Christ as opposed to the works of the Law but not by faith in his Priesthood or Ransom as opposed to faith in him as our Lord and Teacher Gal. 3.11 24 25 26. 5.5.6 Eph 2.8 9. 3.12 17. Phil. 3.9 Rom. 9.30 Heb. 11. throughout John 6 35 40 47. Acts 10.42 43. Rom. 10 10. Acts 23.39 From these and many the like I argue thus The Scripture doth ascribe our Justification to faith and doth not limit it to any one part of faith excluding the rest Believing in Jesus Christ as Redeemer Prophet Priest and King is essentially this faith Ergo c. If the Scripture speaks of faith essentially not limiting it ad partem fidei then so must we But the Scripture doth so Ergo ' c. It is nowhere more necessary then in such cases this to hold to the Rule of not distinguishing ubi lex non distinguit First Because it is an adding to the doctrine of Christ in a point of weight Secondly Because it savoureth of a presumptuous detraction from the Condition Imposed by Christ himself If a Prince do make a General act of Oblivion pardoning all Rebels that will enter into Covenant with him wherein they consent to Accept his pardon and take him for their Soveraign Lord He that shall now say that Returning to his Allegiance or consenting to the Princes Soveraignty is no part of the Condition of the Traytors pardon but that they are pardoned only by accepting of a pardon and not by the other act will certainly be guilty of adding to the act of his Prince and of detracting from the condition by him required and so is it in our present case If God speak of any thing essentially we must not presume without sufficient proof of the restriction to expound it only de parte essentiali If he invite a Guest to his marriage feast he means not the mans head only or his heart only for neither of these is the man If he require a lamb in sacrifice we must not expound it of the head only or heart only of a Lamb. To this Argument briefly in my Apology Mr. Blake having first excepted at the newness of the phrase Lord-Redeemer doth answer thus I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eyes Redemption not Dominion Repl. First The Phrase Faith in Justification is as unacceptable to me as Lord-Redeemer is to you not only for the Novelty but the ambiguity if not the false Doctrine which it doth import First If the meaning be Faith as it is the Condition of our Justification then its contrary to your own Concession after that this should eye Christs Priest-hood only and it s an untruth which you utterly fail in the proof or do nothing to it Secondly If you mean Faith in its effecting of our Justification then it importeth another mistake which you have not proved viz. that faith doth effect our Justification If you mean Faith in Receiving Justification either you mean the proper Passive Receiving and this is but Justificari and the man
which is preached to every Creature and not only one branch of it Col. 1.21 22 23. And it is called Col. 2.6 a Receiving Christ Iesus the Lord. John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name That faith by which we have life is certainly it by which we are justified for as Justification is part of that life so Right to Eternal life is given on the same terms as Justification is And the object of this faith here is Christ in Person and entire Office the son of God by whose Name we have life Acts 2.30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. Knowing that God had sworn with an Oath to him that of the fruit of his loynes according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit upon his Throne he seeing this before spake of the Resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in his Hell neither his flesh did see Corruption This Iesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses therefore being by the right hand of God exalted therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made this same Iesus whom ye have Crucified both Lord and Christ Now when they heard this Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sins Here it is evident that Remission of sins is a Benefit that by this faith they were to be made partakers of and so that it is the faith by which we are justified that they are Invited to And that the Object of this faith implyed in the terms Repent and be baptized c. is the Name of Jesus Christ and that eminently in his exaltation as Risen and set at the Right hand of God and as Lord and Christ So Acts 3.19.22.15 Repent therefore and be Converted that your sins may be blotted out For Moses truly said A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up Here the Jews are accused for killing the Prince of life vers 15. and exhorted to Repent thereof and so of their Infidelity and be converted to Christ and so to become Christians which is more then one act of faith and this was that their sins may be blotted out And Christ as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of this faith which they are exhorted to So Act 10.42 43. with 36 37 38 40 41. And he commanded us to preach unto the people and to testifie that it is he that is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead to him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of sins Here the faith is described which hath the Promise of Remission And the Object of it is at large set out to be Jesus Christ as Lord of all ver 36. as anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power raised from the dead and made the Judge of the quick and the dead and it is called entirely a Believing in him and the Remission is through his name Act. 16.31 The faith of the Jaylor as perswaded to for life is the believing in the Lord Jesus Christ entirely and it s called a Believing in God ver 34. 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. The faith there mentioned is that By which we are justified he that believeth on him shall not be confounded and the Object of it is whole Christ as the Corner stone Elect and Precious John 5.10 11 12. The faith there mentioned is that by which we have Christ and Life And the Object of it is the Son of God and God and the record that God gave of his Son even that God hath given us eternal Life and this life is in his Son Mat. 11.27 28 29. The faith there mentioned is called a comming to Christ weary and heavy laden that he may give them rest which must comprehend Rest from the Guilt of sin and punishment And the Act of that Faith is directed to Christ as one to whom all Power is given by the Father and as one whose yoak and burden we must take upon us But I shall add no more for this To this last Mr. Blake saith pag. 504. This Text shows the Duty of men to be not alone to such rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedom or Justification Repl. Properly neither one act of faith nor other is our Justification Faith is a Quality in the Habit and an act in the exercise and Justification is a Relation Faith is a part of our Sanctification Therefore it is not our Justification But supposing you speak Metonymically I say both acts of faith are our Justification that is the Condition of it And the Text proves it by making our Subjection not only a Duty but an express Condition of the Promise And this Conditionality you here before and after do confess or grant Argument 4. If we are justified by Christ as Priest Prophet and King conjunctly and not by any of these alone much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone then according to the Opponents own Principles who argue from the distinct Interest of the several parts of the Object to the distinct Interest of the several acts of faith we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest Prophet and King and not as Humble and Obedient only But we are justified by Christ as Priest Prophet and King c. Ergo c. The Consequence is their own And the Antecedent I shall prove from several texts of Scripture and from the nature of the thing beginning with the last And first it is to be supposed That we are all agreed that the blood and Humiliation of Jesus Christ are the Ransome and Price that satisfieth the Justice of God for our sins and accordingly must be apprehended by the Believer And many of us agree also that his Active obedience as such is part of this satisfaction or at least Meritorious of the same effect of our Justification But the thing that I am to prove is that the Meritorious Cause is not the only Cause and that Christ in his other actions is as truly the efficient Cause as in his meriting and that all do sweetly and harmoniously concur to the entire effect and that faith must have respect to the other causes of our Justification and not alone to the Meritorious Cause and that we are Justified by this entire work of Faith and not only by that Act which respects the satisfaction or merit And first I shall prove that Christ doth actually justifie us as King The word Justification as I have often said and it s past doubt is used to signifie these three Acts. First Condonation or constitutive Justification by the Law of Grace or Promise of the Gospel Secondly Absolution
offered you that you take them thankfully lovingly humbly renouncing your own worth c. are necessary parts of the condition of your pardon There is as great a Necessity laid upon that part of the Condition which Christs honour lieth on and that in order to your Justification as of that part which directly respecteth your Salvation And me thinks common reason and ingenuity should tell you that it must be so and that its just and meet it should be so And therefore I may safely conclude ex natura rei that the taking of Christ for our â—eacher and Lord is as truly a part of the condition of our Justification and our Justification lieth as much upon it as the Affiance in Christs sufferings If you say But the efficiency is not equal though it be equally a Condition I answer Neither of them have any proper efficiency in justifying us unless you will unfitly call the Conditionality an Efficiency or the Acceptableness of believing in the sight of God an efficiency there is no such thing to be ascribed to our faith as to the effect of Justification But this belongs to another Controversie I know not what can be said more against this unless by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any proper Condition but only a priority and posteriority of Duties But the express conditional terms of the Covenant do put this so far out of doubt and I have said so much of it in other writings that I shall not trouble my self here with this sort of Adversaries Only to prevent their mistake I shall tell them this that in a condition there is somewhat Essential and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promise and therefore they are proper conditions and there is somewhat Accidental as First sometime that the thing be Vncertain to the Promiser This is not in Gods Conditions It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent Secondly That the matter of the condition be somewhat that is gainfull to the Promiser or otherwise have a merit or moral causality But this is separable In our case it is sufficient that it be somewhat that God liketh loveth or is pleasing to him though it properly merit not And the evident Reason why God hath made some Promises conditional is that his Laws and Promises may be perfectly suited to the nature of man on whom they must work and so may shew forth Gods Infinite Wisdom and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor As also that the Holiness of God may shine forth in his Word and it may be seen that he loveth Justice Holiness Obedience and not only the persons of men and so all his Attributes may be seen in their conjunction and the beauty that thence resulteth in the Glass of his Word Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet than the faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Only the Antecedent needs proof though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also Here note that by The condemning Vnbelief I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel Where I suppose first that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin Secondly And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace which is not simply for sin as sin but for one sort of sin in special that is the final rejection of the Remedy And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake The Antecedent I prove First from John 3.18 19 20 21. He that believeth on him is not condemned There 's the justifying faith But he that believeth not is condemned already There 's the condemning unbelief contradictory to the justifying faith Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God here is a special condemnation proved distinct from that by the Law of works And this is the condemnation that is the condemning sin or cause that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil For every one that doth evil hateth the light c. The 19 verse describeth the Condemning unbelief and the 20. gives the reason of mens guiltiness of it And the unbelief described is a shunning or not coming to Christ as he is the Light to discover and heal their evil deeds So that if contradictories will but shew the nature of each other I think our controversie is here plainly resolved So is it in Psal 2.12 Kise the Son left he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed are all they that put their trust in him The faith that saves from punishment saveth from Guilt The faith that saves from Guilt is justifying faith The faith here described is that which saves from punishment And the faith here described is kissing the Son which comprehendeth subjection and dependance and love and is the same for all that which is after called trusting in him So Luke 19.27 But those mine enemies which would not that I should raign over them bring hither and destroy them before me Unwillingness to have Christ raign over them is here made not a common but the special condemning sin called commonly Unbelief and so is the contrary to justifying faith So John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son this as all confess is justifying faith hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation the contradictory or contrary to justifying faith First because they are so directly opposed here denominatively that else the words would be equivocal and not intelligible Secondly Because the contrariety of effects also is added to put the thing past doubt The wrath of God abideth on him is contrary to justifying which takes the wrath of God off him especially considering that it is cursing comminatory obliging wrath that is principally meant the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation And that materially this unbelief thus opposed to justifying faith doth consist in contumacy rebellion or unperswadableness is plain in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie They that are contumacious or disobedient to the Son or unperswadable And 1 John 5.10 11 12. This faith and unbelief are opposed and the unbelief consisteth in not
If you consent not to this you then must maintain that this Covenant excludeth not Infidels from salvation the term only being not implyed in the promise of pardon to Believers But if you grant all this as sure you will then it is most evident that Believing is taken in the same sense in the promise and in the threatning For no man breathing can tell me either how a Promise to one kind of faith can imply a threatning against the want of another kind or act of faith or else what that other faith must be that is so implyed if not the same And if it be the same faith that is implyed which is a most evident truth then it will follow that if I prove the Threatned unbelief to be a Rejecting of Christ as King the faith then that is made the condition of the promise must be the accepting of him as King as well as Priest But I have proved that not believing in Christ as King is part of the unbelief that is specially threatned werth condemnation therefore believing in him as King is part of that faith which hath the promise or is the Condition of Justification But saith Mr. Blake I further answer Rejecting Christ as King is a sin against the moral Law which damns Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required than a sinner may be saved Repl. For my part I know no Law but moral Law It s a strange Law that is not Moral as it is a strange Animal that is not quid Physicum But yet I partly understand what some others mean by the phrase Moral Law but what you mean I cannot tell for all your two volumns And it s to small purpose to dispute upon terms whose sense we be not agreed in nor do not understand one another in And you must better agree with yourselves before you agree with me I cannot reconcile these speeches Mr. Blake of the Covenant pag. 111. I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Mr. Blake here pag. 563. Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required that a sinner may be saved I am confident you will allow me to think you mean somewhat more ex parte nostri and not only ex parte Christi And can that somewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it And yet I find you sometimes seeming offended with me for telling you I understand you not But I further answer you The rejecting of Christ as King is no further a sin against the Moral Law then the accepting him as King is a duty of the Moral Law Will you not believe this without a Dispute when you are told by Paul that where there is no Law there is no transgression and elsewhere that sin is a transgression of the Law And need not stand to prove that the same Law which is the Rule prescribing duty is the Rule discovering sin even that sin which is the Privation of that duty I desire no Readers that will not receive these things without any more arguing Mr. Blake adds Vnbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemn further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be yeur judgement as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the new Law as you call it to an act of oblivion And an act of oblivion saves many but condemns none Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ But this is a truth that you must not so easily take out of our hands Though having had occasion to speak largely of it elsewhere I shall say but little now First Again I know no Commandment that is not moral But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly as delivered by Moses or as written in Nature I am not of your mind nor ever shall be To be void of the belief of these Articles of the faith that this Jesus is the Christ that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried Rose again the third day ascended into Heaven sitteth in our nature at the right hand of God gave the Holy Ghost to his Apostles to confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel with many more doth condemn further then as it is a breach either of the Mosaical or Natural Law yea in some respects as it is no breach of those Laws And yet the same sin materially may be a breach of several Laws and condemned by several Secondly you very much mistake my judgement here if you think it the same with yours Nor will the mention of an act of oblivion justifie your mistake I suppose an Act of oblivion may possibly have a Penalty anexed as that all that stand our and accept not of this pardon by such a year or day shall be remediless and lyable to a greater Penalty And I think if no Penalty be named there is one implyed For my part I am satisfied that the Remedying Law or the Law of Grace hath its special Threatning when I so often read it He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and unless ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins And I take it to differ from the Threatning of the law of works thus First In the matter of the condition which is not sin in general any sin but a special sin viz. the final rejecting the Remedy that is Refusing to turn to God by faith in Christ Secondly In the Penalty First The Gospel Penalty is Non-liberation from the curse of the Law Not to be forgiven or saved This had been but a Negation and not Penal if there had been no Christ and Gospel But it is a privation and penal now because by a special sin we forfeit our hopes and possibilities Secondly As to the degree I find it will be a far sorer punishment Heb. 10.29 The Law of greatest Grace doth threaten the greatest punishment Thirdly And doubtless in Hell Conscience will have a special kind of Accusations and self-tormentings in reflecting on the refusals of the remedy and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant which is a punishment that was never threatned by the Covenant of works Fourthly And there will be a Privation of a greater Glory then ever was promised under the Law of works Fifthly As also of a special sort of eternal felicity consisting in loving the Redeemer and singing the song of the Lamb and being his members c. Thirdly And as there are these five differences in the Penalty besides that of the Condition of it so is there a considerable modal difference in the consummation it self viz. that of the Law of works was
similitudes that have little or no similitude as to this The common similitude is A man that is oculatus heareth but not qua oculatus but qua auritus c. Repl. First If you take quà strictly the affirmative is not true For then à quatenus ad omne every man that is auritus would hear whereas he may stop his ears and be where is no sound c. And a man that hath eyes may wink and be in the dark c. Secondly If quà signifie the aptitude or causal interest I deny the similitude It is dissimile and the reason of the difference is evident for a mans eyes are Physical efficient causes of his sight and his ears of hearing naturally in their aptitude and potentiality determined to their proper objects but saith is no efficient cause of our Justification or of our interest in Christ at all much less a Physical efficient cause But the Interest it hath is Moral which dependeth on the Donors will and it is no higher then that of a condition and therefore the act that Physically hath least respect to the object may in this case if the Donor please do as much to procure a Title to it as that which hath the nearest physical respect to it As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will discover a Traitor or marry one that oweth it here the alien act hath more interest in procuring your Title then your Apprehending or treading on the soil or taking possession yea or accepting the deed of Gift it self So God hath made our Accepting of whole Christ to be the condition of life and pardon and consequently the Accepting him in other Relations in which he destroyeth sin advanceth God c. doth as much to our Justification as the accepting him at our Ransome Now to Mr. Blakes Reasons when he saith that this distinction would pass every where else as necessary he is much mistaken for as he doth not tell us at all what sort of distinction it is whether Realis Rationis Modalis Formalis Virtualis c. so I could give him an hundred instances in which it will not pass in any tolerable sense but what are his own select instances from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects But is it Christ or the believer that you put in these various Relations It s plain that you mean Christ But that 's nothing to the question I maintain as well as you that Christ performeth variety of works according to the divers parts of his office and that he meriteth not Justification as King but as a Sacrifice as he effectively justifieth not as a sacrifice but as a King and he teacheth as a Teacher c. this was never denyed by me But the question is whether the Interest of the several acts of our faith be accordingly distinct which I deny and confidently deny In the works that Christ doth in these several Relations there is distincti◠realis and Christ is the proper efficient cause of them But though our faith must accept Christ in all these Relations and to do the several works in the several Relations yet it is no proper cause of the effects and as I said the interest it hath in the procurement is meerly moral and that but of a condition and therefore it is to be judged of by the will of the Donor But you say that only they that come to Christ as a Physician are cured by him Repl. Very true I never denyed it But not only By coming to him as a Physitian especially as the Worker of this one part of the cure You add Believers through faith go to Christ that heareth all ◠the Relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding they are Justified Repl. Very true if by as you understand only the aptitude of the act to its office and the certain connexion of the effect otherwise it is not as they believe at all that they are justified but it is not only as they seek satisfaction in his blood but also as they believe in him as King Teacher Rising Interceding c. Though it be Christs blood and not his Dominion that Ransometh us yet his promise giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of believing in him as King as of the believing in his blood Hitherto we have come short of your proofs which next we shall proceed to and freely examine Mr. Blake I shall take the bodlness to give in my Arguments to make good that faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie First That which the types under the law appointed for atonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for atonement expiation and reconciliation this cannot be denyed These Levitical Types lead us doubtless to a right object being Schoolmasters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith which serves for that work But those types lead us to Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as sacrificing sometime as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Heb. is a proof of it Reply I grant you both Major and Minor but the question is a meer stranger to the Just conclusion First it will not follow because our faith must eye Christ as Priest for Reconciliation that therefore it must eye him only as Priest for Reconciliation And if only be not in your exclusion of other acts of faith follows not Secondly No nor if it were in neither for ex perte Christs for Reconciliation only Christs Priesthood is to be eyed as the meritorious cause speaking in their sense that take the priestly office to comprehend not only Christ as Sacrificer but as sacrifice yea as obeying in the form of a servant the sicness whereoff now pass by but ex parte nostri the so eying him is not the only act of faith by which we are justified so that for is ambiguous and either signifieth Christs procurement of our Justification or ours In the former sense grant as aforesaid these Types shew us that Christ only as Priest and sacrifice doth satisfie for us But as to the procuring Interest of our faith these Types shew us not that only this act procureth our Interest Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any such thing Jo. 1.19 saith that Christ the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world but it doth not say that only believing in him as the Lamb of God is the faith upon which we have part in his blood and are justified by him 1 Pet. 1.18 tels us we were Redeemed by his precious blood but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have interest in it but contrarily thus describes that faith ver 21. Who by him
offices and look not to him as making the Covenant or Grant of pardon in his blood and as teaching and perswading and working us into Union with himself that we may have part in his blood and as conferring daily the fruits of his blood as King in Renewed pardon of daily sins and as justifying us at Judgement as King and Judge His blood is a Foundation without a building if you take it without all these Overlook these and you deny it as well as by over-looking his Resurrection Besides Session at Gods Right Hand which is one thing that the Apostle instanceth in Romans 8.35 is his Glorification it self And when you say He presents his blood as High Priest c. I answer But not as a renewed sacrifice presenting it is not shedding it or offering it in sacrifice And the presentation is not a minding God of what he knows not or hath forgot or an arguing with him to extort his Mercy but as the value and merit of Christs sacrifice hath its continual Being before God so Christ doth give out all his benefis to his Church as procured and received from the Father by the merit of his sacrifice and this is his Intercession But your arguing yiedeth that to Justification we must not only believe in Christ as shedding his blood for us on earth but also on Christ as presenting his blood for us in heaven which is enough to my ends Mr. Blake You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and Command than I can Blood and Sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to Rule as of blood to make atonement Repl. First If you cannot distinguish there 's no remedy but you must err by confusion It s obvious to an ordinary understanding that even Blood and Sacrifice may as well be distinguished as Earth and Man or Ink and Writing Blood signifying only the matter yea but part of the matter and a Sacrifice signifying that matter with its moral Form Secondly And it s as obvious that Lord and Command do otherwise differ then Blood and Sacrifice for Lord as it signefieth principally a Proprietary is toto caelo distinct from command as standing in another series And Lord as it signifieth a Rector doth differ from Command as the efficient from the effect which is otherwise then as part of the matter doth from the whole informed It is no Argument against the truth which I maintain that you cannot distinguish these Thirdly If it be the office of a Lord to Rule then you may well distinguish betwen the office and the work But indeed in the first sense Lord signifieth a Proprietary and but in the second a Rulers Power which is not alwayes properly called an Office neither no more then the Soveraign is properly an Officer Fourthly To make Atonement is not all one as to be a Sacrifice which was your former term for Atonement is the effect of a Sacrifice not of blood as blood but as a Sacrifice meritorious and accepted Fifthly And as to the point in difference between us the difference is palpable and weighty between believing in Christ as King and believing or obeying his Commands As his Kingly Power belongs to the Constitution of his mystical body or Republike and his commands that flow from it to the Administration so Subjection to his Power and Relation and consenting to this constitution do enter us into the Body and unite us to him when believing and obeying his Laws for Administration do follow as the fruits If you could have distinguished between the Root and Fruits between Faith and Obedience between making Disciples and teaching to observe c. Mat. 28 19.2â— or becoming Disciples and Learning you might have distinguished between becoming a Subject and obeying And what ever you do I am sure others of your way do grant that Receiving Christ as Lord and Teacher is the faith that justifieth though not qua talis but they will not say so by receiving or obeying his Governing Laws which are distinct from the constitution or fundamental Law Mr. Blake You yet tell me it was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with Animiadversions and tell us of any other thing ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for Justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly Office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further Repl. Though I may not hope to change you if you are Resolved yet I may take leave to render a reason of my contrary as peremptory Resolution I am resolved to look further ex parte Christi then to his blood yea or his whole Merit yea or whole Priest-hood for my Justification even to whole Christ and in special to his Regal constitution and sentence Yet I rest where you desire me as to the Truth of what I said and if we are agreed it s better then I can perceive in your other words First Though Paul there mention the Priestly office alone yet that 's not all his Epistles nor all the Scriptures nor doth he here exclude the rest Secondly It may be fittest to Pauls design in that particular discourse to mention faith in his blood and yet it may be fit for another to come in with animadversions and tell you of more necessary both ex parte Christi nostri It s common to express our meaning of a whole in a summary notion taken from a chief part And indeed in Political discourses it is hard to meet with a fitter way of expression Thirdly Paul himself was not of your opinion nor Christ neither and yet it was not unfit for them to discover it The same Paul that here thought it fittest to mention faith in his blood did elsewhere think it fit to mention Jusstification by his Obedience and that he Rose again for our Justification and to promise Jmputation of Righteousness to us if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead Rom. 4.24 25. with the like passages before mentioned But most frequently it is the comprehensive phrase of believing in Christ Jesus our Lord that he useth The same Christ that calleth himself so oft the Lord and Master of his followers excludeth not thereby his other Relations And when he saith in one place I am the Vine he may freely say else where I am the good Shepherd And he that speaketh of laying down his life for the sheep doth not thereby make it unfit to mention other Pastoral a is for them And he that tels us of eating his flesh
and drinking his blood intended not the exclusion of the spirit that quickneth I am therefore Resolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Christ as the object of that faith which is the Condition of Justification And I think this full comprehensive faith is safer then the groundlesly distinguishing faith and this Doctrine more agreeable to the Scriptures Mr. Blake Fourthly Our faith must look on Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his Obedience as a servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before God as righteous Rom. 5.19 by the obedience of one many are made righteous Repl. First I grant the whole but it s nothing to our Question It s a strange error that runs through so many Arguments that they should be impertinent to the question You should have concluded that Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which in terminis is the conclusion that you undertook to prove whereas all that this Argument will conclude is that our faith must look at Christs obedience for Righteousness c. which I have said no more against then you have done Secondly But if Only be implyed as adjoyned to obedience then it will exclude his suffering as suffering in that formal respect and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience Thirdly And by this Argument you destroy what you not only mantained but resolved to stick to in the last that is that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for justification and that you are resolved to look no further then Christs Priestly office alone For Obedience extendeth further then blood-shed therefore if we are justified by Christs whole obedience then by more then his blood Yea you will be put hard to it to prove that all Christs obedience was offered by him as a Preist to his Father It belongs to a Subject a Servant a Son to obey but obedience is far from being proper to a Priest Fourthly If you intend the Major exclusively as to all other considerations of the object I still deny it as false Our faith even as the condition of Justification must look at Christ not only to obtain Righteousness by him but also to subject our selves to his Teaching and Government and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy Fifthly Yea the Minor it self is false if you imply the exclusive Only For we obtain Righteousness and are justified before God effectively by Christ as King first by constitution and secondly by sentence as well as meritoriously by Christ as Priest Mr. Blake Fifthly That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the Sacrifice of of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust c. Repl. Still the same error an Ignoratio Elenchi I grant the whole but the conclusion's wanting Did I ever deny that faith must eye and follow Christs death to bring us to God yea for Justification But you should have said by his death alone or you say nothing And when you prove that by his death alone Christ brings us to God you will do somewhat And yet if you did it would not follow that we are brought to God in Justification only by eying the cause of Justification as such Mr. Blake Sixthly As Christ freeth us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look to him for Justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittal from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Act. 13.8 but Christ freeth us from the cause in suffering as a Sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath Redeemed us c. Repl. First Only is again left out in the Major proposition and so I grant it But if it be implyed that faith must look to him for Justification only in that notion as he justifieth us yea only as he meriteth Justification then I deny it and you say nothing to prove it Secondly The exclusive of your Minor is a dangerous error Christ freeth us from the curse by Justifying us as a King and teaching and ruling and sanctifying us and not only by becoming a curse for us For if you here put in Only you plainly exclude all his Obedience as such and much of it materially for it is not a cursed thing to obey God The Law curseth for disobeying therefore Obeying is not the Curse nor is it materially a Curse to Love God and Trust him and be zealous for his Glory c. The whole office of Christ is imployed in freeing us from the Curse and when Paul saith he was made a Curse to free us he never said or thought that he did nothing else to free us for an hundred texts do tell us of more Thirdly And on the by I must say that I am not of your mind in the description of Justification for omitting the controversie whether Justification only free us from the Curse I do not believe that this curse is only the sentence of the Law of Moses If it were either you must prove that all the Gentile world that heard not of it was under the Law of Moses which abundance of most Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it or else that all these are under no curse for Justification to remove The Law of Nature was materially part of the Mosaical Law but the form denominateth So much to Mr. Blakes Arguments which are so little to the purpose that if the weight of the cause and the prejudice of some Readers did not call more earnestly for a Reply then any apperance of strength in them I had spared my self and the Reader this Labor But that Christ as Christ is the object of that faith by which as a Condition we must be justified and so that we are not justified only by believing in his blood but also by believing in him entirely as Jesus Christ our Lord and by becoming his Disciples or true Christians this is a truth that deserveth more then my Pen to defend it and that while God affordeth me time and strength I shall never desert Nov. 1656. A DISPVTATION OF JVSTIFICATION Whether any Works be any Conditions of it Conteining a necessary Defence of ancient Verity against the unnecessary Opposition of a very Learned Reverend and dearly Beloved Brother in his Treatise of Imputation of Righteousness and his Lectures on John 17. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster 1657. Whether Works are a Condition of Justification And so whether we are justified by Works as such a Condition THough we have said enough already on these Questions which for dispatch I joyn together yet seeing there are some that must needs have more or the same
object of faith The principal object is an ens incomplexum Christ himself but a subordinat Object is both the Doctrine Revealing what he is and hath done and the promise which offereth him to us and telleth us what he will do If a Princes Son redeem a woman from Captivity or the Gallows and cause an Instrument under his own hand and the Kings to be sent to her assuring her of pardon and liberty and honours with himself if she will take him for her husband and trust him for the accomplishment Is it not possible for this woman to be pardoned and delivered by the King by the Princes ransom by the Prince espoused and by her marriage with him and by the Instrument of pardon or conveyance You may be enriched by a Deed of Gift and yet it may be an ens incomplexum that is bestowed on you by that Deed and enricheth you too Your Money and your Lease both may give you title to your house The promise is Gods Deed of Gift bestowing on us Christ and pardon or Justification with him Treat Besides Abraham was Iustified and he is made the pattern of all that shall be Iustified Yet there was no Scripture-grant or deed of gift in writing declaring this God then communicating himself to Belivers in an immediate manner Answ Was there no Gospel-grant then extant no deed of Gift of Christ and his Righteousness to all that should believe Nothing to assure men of Justification by faith but immediate communications to Believers If so then either there was no Church and no salvation or a Church and salvation without faith in Christ and either faith in the Messiah to come for pardon and life was a duty or no duty If no duty then If a duty then there was a Law enjoyning it and that Law must needs contain or be conjunct with a revelation of Christ and pardon and life to be had by him I suppose that whatever was the standing way of Life and Justification then to the Church had a standing precept and promise to engage to the duty and secure the benefit I know not of duty without Precept nor of faith without a word to be believed But this word was not written True but what of that Was it ever the less a Law or Promise the Object of Faith or Instrument of Justification The promise of the seed might be conveighed by Tradition and doubtless was so Or if there had been no general conditional grant or offer of pardon through Christ in those times but only particular communications to some men yet would those have been nevertheless instrumental Treat Therefore to call this Grant or Conditional Promise in the Scripture Whosoever shall believe shall be justified a transient act of God is very unproper unless in such a sense as we say such a mans writing is his hand and that is wholly impertinent to our purpose Answ There are two distinct acts of God here that I call Transient The first is the Enacting of this Law or giving this promise If this were not Gods act then it is not his Law or promise If it be his act it is either Transient or Immanent I have not been accustomed to believe that Legislation Promising c. are no acts or are Immanent acts The second is the continued Moral Action of the Word which is also Gods Action by that Word as his Instrument As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit and of a Lease to give Title c. And so the Law is said to absolve condemn command c. What it saith it saith to them that are under the Law And to say is to Act. Though physically this is no other Action then a sign performeth in signifying or a fundamentum in producing the Relation which is called the nearest efficient of that Relation Now either you think that to oblige the most essential act of Laws to absolve condemn c. are Gods acts by his Word or not If not the mistake is such as I dare not confute for fear least by opening the greatness of it I offend you If yea then either it is Gods Immanent act or his Transient The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be That which is done by an Instrument is no Immanent act in God To oblige to duty to give right to Impunity and Salvation c. are done by Instruments viz. the Word of God as it is the signifier of his will therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover that which is begun in time and is not from Eternity is no Immanent Act. But such are the fore-mentioned because the word which is the Instrument was indited in time Lastly that which maketh a change on the extrinsick object is no Immanent act but such are these Moral acts of the Word for they change our Relations and give us a Right which we had not before c. therefore they are certainly transient acts A thing that I once thought I should never by man have been put to prove Treat pag. 130. It s true at the day of Judgement there will be a solemn and more compleat Justifying of us as I have elswhere shewed Answ You have very well shewed it and I take gratefully that Lecture and this Concession Treat pag. 131. Indeed we cannot then be said to be justified by Faith c. Hence this kind of Iustification will cease in heaven as implying imperfection Answ And I desire you to observe that if it be no dishonour to Christ that we be there through his grace everlastingly justified without his Imputed righteousness or pardon or faith pro futuro it cannot be any dishonour to him here that we should repent and believe and be sanctified nor that those should be conditions of further mercy and sufficient of themselves to justifie us against any false charge that we are Impenitent unsanctified Infidels If a perfect cure disgrace not our Physitian then sure an imperfect cure and the acknowledgement of it is no dishonour to our Physitian now Treat pag. 137. Thus all those Arguments If we be Justified by faith then by our own work and that this is to give too much to faith yea more then some say they do to works which they hold a condition of our Justification All these and the like Objections vanish because we are not justified by faith as Justification is considered actively but passively Answ 1. I yet think that I have said enough in my private Papers to you to confute the conceit of faith's being Passive 2. If I had not yet you yield me what I desire If faith act not but suffer to our Justification then is it no efficient Instrumental cause For all true efficiency is by Action And so you keep but a Metaphorical Instrument But of this more hereafter Treat pag. 141. We cannot call Remission of sin a state as we call Justification Answ I do not believe you and I can bring
know not they are not Scripture words nor my words For still I say All Good works are of Debt to God from man Argument 1. Ex natura rei There are many Moral Acts that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt and not of Grace Much less will such Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt and not of Grace The Consequence is grounded on these two or three Reasons 1. God is infinitely above us and therefore less capable of being obliged by our works then man 3. God is our absolute Proprietary and we are wholly his and therefore we can give him nothing but his own 3. God is our Supreme Rector and we are bound to a perfect fulfilling of his Law and we are sinners that have broak that Law and deserve eternal death therefore we are less capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor then of obliging men and indeed uncapable 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory and mans is but some transitory thing therefore we are less capable of making God our Debtor for Justification and Salvation then man for a trifle This proves the Consequence Now the Antecedent I prove by Instances 1. If a man be ready to drown in the water and you offer to help him out if he will lay hold of your hand this act of his is Actus humanus vel moralis and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 2. If a man be in prison for Debt and you ransom him and offer him deliverance on condition he will but consent to come forth on the account of your Ransom this moral Action makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 3. If a man be condemned for Treason and upon Ransom made you procure and offer him a pardon on condition he will take it or if you say If you will give me thanks for it or take it thankfully or If also you confess your Treason or If also you crave pardon of the Prince or If also you confess me your benefactor or If also you will profess your purpose to take up rebellions arms no more or If also you will openly profess the Princes Soveraignty and renounce the Leaders of the Rebells whom you have followed Vpon any one or on all these conditions you shall have a free and full pardon without any cost or suffering of your own Do you think that any of these do make the pardon to be of Debt and not of Grace 4. If you give a man a Lordship on condition he take it as a free Gift from you and pay you yearly a grain of sand or do some act of homage as to say I thank you which hath in it no consideration of value but only of acknowledgment of dependance doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace 5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold on condition he will take it and put off his hat and say I thank you I will not believe that any of these Acts do make the Reward to be not of Grace But if you bid them Go and do me so many daies work for it importing somewhat profitable or valuable for yourself then the case is altered Argument 2. Those works which a man cannot be justified without make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace But there are some works that a man cannot be justified without Jam. 2.24 Matthew 12.37 what ever they be some they are Argument 3. Those works which a man cannot be saved without make not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace But there are some works that we cannot be saved without Therefore there are some works that make not the Reward of Debt and not of Grace The Major is proved by the express exclusion of works in this sense from salvation both as begun and as consummate 2 Tim. 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but his own purpose and grace c. Ephes 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life Rom. 6.23 For the wages of sin is death but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Act. 4.12 Neither is there salvation in any other Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for you c. whence Expositors conclude against works The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts Mat. 25.35 For I was hungry c. Rev. 22.12 and 2.23 Mark 13.34 Rev. 20.13 Jam. 2 14. 1 Pet. 1.17 He will judge every man according to his works c. Argument 4. Those works which Grace commandeth and causeth the Godly to perform do not make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt But there are some such works Ergo c. The Major is evident What Saint dare say that he hath a work that makes not the Reward of Grace especially when it is a work of Grace The Minor is as true as Scripture is true 2 Cor. 9.8 Col. 1.10 2 Thess 2.17 2 Tim. 2.21 Tit. 3.1 Heb. 13.21 Mat. 5.16 Heb. 10.24 1 Pet. 2.12 Tit. 2.14 and 3.8 14. Ephes 2.10 c. Dare any say that God hath not commanded good works or yet that he hath commanded us in the Gospel so to work that the Reward may not be of grace but debt Will any say that the Saints do no good works or else that they do such good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt I hope not Argument 5. Repentance is a moral Act Repentance maketh not the Reward to be of debt and not of grace therefore there are some works that make not the Reward to be not of grace but of Debt The same I say of Faith it self and other Acts. But perhaps some one else will object that though its true that there be such works yet they have no Interest in the business of our Justification and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them Answer First It sufficed to my last purpose to prove that there are works which will not bear his description and therefore are not they that he means Secondly But that those other works have some Interest in the business of our Justification I have proved in the beginning Repentance hath the promise of Pardon so hath faith c. But I 'le not unseasonably here digress to this but refer you to what is said before and after and elsewhere more at large Argu. 6. In ver 5. the opposite term he that worketh not doth not signifie him that performeth no moral act
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
do use it as a means then what means is it Is Prayer any cause of Pardon say so and you say more then we that you condemn and fall under all those censures that per fas aut nefas are cast upon us If it be no cause of pardon Is it a condition sine qua non as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend If you say yea you consequentially recant your disputation or Lecture and turn into the tents of the Opinionists But if it be no condition of pardon then tell us what means it is if you can If you say it is a duty I answer Duty and Means are commonly distinguished and so is necessitas praecepti medii Duty as such is no means to an end but the bare result of a command Though all Duty that God commandeth is also some means yet that is not qua Duty And so far as that Duty is a means it is either a Cause near or remote or a Condition either of the obtainment of the benefit simply or of the more certain or speedy or easie attainment of it or of obtaining some inferiour good that conduceth to the main So that still it is a Cause or a Condition if a means If you say It is an Antecedent I say qua tale that is no means but if a Necessary antecedent that which is the reason of its necessity may make it a means If you go to Physical prerequisites as you talkt of a mans shoulders bearing the head that he may see c. you go extra oleas It s a moral means that we treat of and I think you will not affirm Prayer to be a means of physical necessity to pardon If it were it must be a Physical cause near or remote or a Dispositio materiae of natural necessity c. If you say that prayer for pardon is dispositio subjecti I answer that 's it that we Opinionists do affirm But it is a dispositio moralis and necessary ut medium ad finem and that necessity must be constituted by the Promiser or Donor and that can be only by his modus promissionis which makes it in some measure or other a condition of the thing promised So that there is no lower moral medium then a meer condition sune qua non that my understanding can hitherto find out or apprehend Treat ibid. Paul Judgeth them dung and dross in reference to Justification yea all things c. Answ 1. But what are those All things 2. And what Reference to Justification is it If All things simply in all relation to Justification then he must judge the Gospel dung and dross as to the Instrumental collation of Justification and the Sacraments dung and dross as to the sealing of it and the Ministry dung and dross as to the preaching and offering it and beseeching men to be reconciled to God and Faith to be dung and dross as to the receiving of it as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and dross as conditions of it or Prayer Obedience as conditions of continuing it 2. It s evident in the text that Pauls speaks of All things that stand in opposition to Christ and that stand in competition with him as such and not of any thing that stands in a necessary subordination to him as such 3. He expresly addeth in the text for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord this therefore is none of the all things that are dung for the All things are opposed to this And it containeth that faith which is works with the Opponents for this is more then a recumbency on Christ as Priest It is the Knowledge of him as Lord also I am confident I shall never learn to expound Paul thus I esteem All things even the knowledge of Christ Jesus as Lord and Prophet as dung for the Knowledge of him as Priest Also Paul here excepteth his suffering the loss of that All. I am confident that the All that Paul suffered the loss of comprehended not his Self-denyal Repentance Prayer Charity Hope c. 4. It is not only in reference to Justification that Paul despiseth All things but it is to the winning of Christ who doubtless is the Principle of Sanctification as well as Justification and to be found in him which containeth the sum of his felicity If a man should be such a self-contradicter as to set Repentance or Faith in Christ or Prayer in his Name or Hope in him c. against winning Christ and against being found in him or against the knowledge of him let that man so far esteem his faith hope prayer c. as dung If you should say I account all things dung for the winning of God himself as my felicity Would you have me interpret you thus I account the love of God dung and prayer to him and studious obeying him and the word that revealeth him c. even as they stand subordinate to him This same Paul rejoyced in the testimony of his conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had had his conversation among them and he beat or subdued his body and brought it into subjection lest he should be Reprobated after he was justified and he prayed for pardon of sin and tells Timothy In doing this thou shalt save thy self c. therefore these things thus used were none of the All things that he opposed to the knowledge of Christ as dung Treat pag. 234 235. Others would avoid this Objection by saying that Gospel graces which are the Conditions of the Covenant are reducible to the Law and so Christ in satisfying the Law doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them And they judge it absurb to say that Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the second Covenant or breaches which is said to be only final unbelief Answ As this is brought in by head and shoulders so is it recited lamely without the necessary distinctions and explications adjoyned yea without part of the Sentence it self and therefore unfaithfully Treat But this answer may be called Legion for many errours and coctradictions are in it 1. How can justifying faith qua talis in the act of Justifying and Repentance be reducible duties to the Law taken strictly Indeed as it was in a large sense discovered to the Jews being the Covenant of Grace as I have elsewhere proved Vindic. Legis so it required Justifying Faith and Repentance But take it in the sense as the Abettor of this opinion must do justifying faith and repentance must be called the works of the Law Answ It s easilier called Legion then faithfully reported or solidly confuted 1. Let the Reader observe how much I incurr'd the displeasure of Mr. Blake for denying the Moral Law to be the sufficient or sole Rule of all duty and how much he hath said against me therein and then judge how hard a task it is to please all men when these two neighbours and friends do publikely thus draw
me such contrary waies and I must be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I say Yea or Nay And yet which is the wonder they differ not among themselves 2. But seeing your ends direct you to fetch in his controversie so impertinent to the rest its requisite that the Abettor do better open his opinion then you have done that the Reader may not have a Defence of he knows not what My opinion so oft already explained in other writings is this 1. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator is to be distinguished from the Remedying Law of Grace called the New Testament the Promise c. Whether you will call them two Laws or two parts of one Law is little co the purpose seeing in some respect they are two and in some but one 2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and Sanction or doth constitute the Dueness 1. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or shall command 2. And of many duties in particular 3. And of everlasting death as the penalty of all sin So that it saith The wages of sin is death 3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace like an act of Oblivion which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed 2. And command the belief of them which other particular duties in order to its ends 3. And doth offer Christ and Pardon and Life by a Conditional Donation enacting that whosoever will Repent and Believe shall be Justified and persevering therein with true obedience shall be finally adjudged to everlasting life and possessed thereof It s tenor is He that Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved and he that doth not shall be damned 4. That the sense of this Promise and Threatning is He that Repenteth and Believeth at all in this life though but at the last hour shall be saved and he that doth it not at all shall be damned Or he that is found a penitent Believer at death c. And not he that believeth not to day or to morrow shall be damned though afterward he do 5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was not at first Peremptory and Remediless and that now it is so far Remedyed as that there is a Remedy at hand for the dissolving of the Obligation which will be effectual as soon as the Condition is performed 6. That the Remedying Law of Grace hath a peculiar penalty that is 1. Non-liberation A privation of Pardon and life which was offered For that 's now a penal privation which if there had been no Saviour or Promise or Offer would have been but a Negation 2. The certain Remedilesness of their misery for the future that there shall be no more sacrifice for sin 3. And whether also a greater degree of punishment I leave to consideration 7. I still distinguished between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant and between sin as it respecteth both And so I said that Repentance and Faith in Christ even as a means to Justification are commanded in specie in the Gospel which constituteth them duties but commanded consequently in genere in the Law of nature under the generall of Obedience to all particular precepts and whether also the Law of Nature require the duty in specie supposing God to have made his supernatural preparations in providing and propounding the objects I left to enquiry Accordingly I affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity though afterward Repented of as also the Imperfections of true faith and repentance are sins against the General precept of the Law of Nature and the special precept of the Law of Grace and that Christ dyed for them and they are pardoned through his blood upon condition of sincere Repentance and Faith 8. Accordingly distinguishing between the respect that sin hath to the precept and prohibition on one side and to the promise and threatning on the other I affirmed that the foresaid Impenitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance are condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only and that the person is not under the Actual obligation of the peculiar Threatning of the Law of Grace that is that though as to the Gospel Precept these sins may be against the Gospel as well as the Law yet as to the Threatning they are not such violations of the New Covenant as bring men under its actual curse for then they were remediless And therefore I said that its only final Impenitency and Unbelief as final that so subjects men to that Curse or Remediless peremptory sentence The reason is because the Gospel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death the Condition of promised pardon and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impenitency and unbelief final it is not that which brings a man under the Remediless Curse except only in case of the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is ever final 9 Accordingly I affirm that Christ never bore or intended to bear the peculiar Curse of his own Law of Grace 1. As not suffering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief which is proved in his Gospel constitution which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance and therefore the non-performance of his Condition is expresly excepted from all pardon and consequently from the intended satisfaction and price of pardon 2. In that he did not bear that species of punishment as peculiarly appointed by the Gospel viz. To be denyed Pardon Justification and Adoption and to be Remediless in misery c. 10. Also I said that all other sins are pardonable on the Gospel Conditions but the non-performance that is final of those Conditions is everlastingly unpardonable and consequently no sin pardoned for want of them Reader this is the face of that Doctrine which Reverend Brethren vail over with the darkness and confusion of these General words that I say Christ hath not satisfied for sins against the second Covenant And all these explications I am fain to trouble the world with as oft as they are pleased to charge me in that confusion But what remedy This is the Legion of errours and contradictions which I leave to thy impartial judgement to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit shall convince thee that they are erroneous and to bless those Congregations and Countries that are taught to abhor them and to rejoyce in their felicity that believe the contrary Treat pag. 235. 2. If so then the works of the Law are Conditions of our Justification and thus he runneth into the extream he would avoid Answ 1. The works which the Law requireth to Justification that is perfect obedience are not the Conditions of Justification 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Mosaical Law of Sacrifices c. 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law after the special Constitution of the Gospel God hath chosen
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
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
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
if God wil shew me so much Mercy as to enable this restless uncessantly-pained Sceleton to such a work I shall be bold to send you word and claim the favour you offer In the mean time it is my duty to let you know I have received your Letter and to return your hearty thanks for it though it be not that which I hoped for and shall now cease to expect I am convinced now as well as you that Letters are but a loss of time but your Arguments or direct answers to my Questions would have been for my advantage a precious improvement of it but seeing I may not be so happy I must rest content It still seemeth to my weak understanding to be no impertinency to prove that your self affirm Repentance Confession Turning Forgiveing others c to be more then signs i. e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness and to tell you that I say no more and to tell you still that you give more to faith and so to man then I but I give no more to works for ought I descern then you I am sure then our ordinary Divines do And if I do mistake herein you have little reason to suspect me of willfulness though of weakness as much as you please As for the state of the Question between us which you speak of I am a stranger to it and know not what you mean I never came to the stating of a Question with you nor did you state any to me in your letters but mentioned your vehement dissent from several passages in my book and therefore I had reason to think that you fell upon the Questions as there they were stated so that it is intime medullitùs pertinent to my question which is impertinent to yours You say the question is Whether the Gospel righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing and tell me that I say by believing and obedience when I never stated such a question nor ever gave such an answer I suppose by Gospel Righteousness you mean Christs Righteousness given to Believers Now I have affirmed that those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do believe and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically righteous But your phrase made ours doth intimate that our first possession of Christs Righteousness should be upon Obedience as well as Faith which I never affirmed But Christs Righteousness is continued ours on condition of obeying him though not made ours so and we shall be justified at Judgement also on that condition As it is not marriage duty but Contract which is the condition of a womans first Interest in her Husband and his riches but marriage duty and the performance of that Covenant is the condition of her Interest as continued And indeed it is much of my care in that Book to shun and avoid that question which you say is stated between us for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word By which I was loth to play with I know we are justified By God the Father By Christs satisfaction By Christs absolution By the Gospel Covenant or Promise By the Sacraments By Faith By Works for I will never be ashamed to speak the words of the Holy Ghost By our words for so saith Christ Therefore if you will needs maintain in general that Christs Righteousness is made ours no otherwise then by beleiving nor otherwise continued ours you see how much you must exclude But to remove such Ambiguity I distinguish between justifying By as an efficient instrumental Cause and By as by a condition and I still affirm that Works or Obedience do never justifie as any cause much less such a cause but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Justifier we are finally justified And truly Sir it is past my reach at present to understand what you say less in this then I except you differ only about the word By and not the sence and think that it is improper to say that Pardon or Justification is By that which is but a condition You seem here to drive all at this and yet me thinks you should not 1. Because you affirm your self that conditions have a moral efficiency and then it seems when you say Repentance Confession c. are conditions you mean they are morally efficient which is a giving more to works then ever I did 2. Because you know it is the phrase of Christ and his Spirit that we are justified By our words and works and it is safe speaking in Scripture phrase 3. Because you say after that my Assertions are destructive of what Divines deliver but the word By if we are agreed in the sence cannot be destructive and except the phrase only By c. be the difference where is it When you say Repentance c. are conditions and I say they are no more and I have nothing from you of any disagreement about the sence of the word condition Lest you should doubt of my meaning in that I understand it as in our usual speech it is taken and as Lawyers and Divines generally do viz. Est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur quoad ex post facto confirmetur ut Cujacius And whereas Conditions are usually distinguisht into potestativas causales mixtas seu communes I mean conditiones potestativas Where you add that you say only faith is the condition justifying c. but I make a justifying Repentance c. And whereas heretofore we had only justifying faith now c. I answer 1. If by justifying Repentance c. you mean that which is as you say Faith is an instrument or efficient Cause I never dreamed of any such If as a Condition you confess it your self 2. If you speak against the sence we are agreed in that for ought I know If against the phrase then justifying Faith or Repentance is no Scripture phrase but to be justified By faith and By works and By words are all Scripture phrases You say you firmly hold that Repentance and other Exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and media ordinat◠in the use whereof only Pardon can be had but what is this to me c. I answer 1. Add conditions as you do in your Book and you say as much as I. 2. If by the other exercises of Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated or the like and if by Pardon you mean even the first pardon as the word Only shews you do then you go quite beyond me and give far more to those exercises of grace then I dare do For I say that Christ and all his imputed Righteousness is made ours and we pardoned and justified at first without any works or obedience more then bare faith and what is precedent in its place or concomitant and
that bona opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justificandum in regard of our first justification I dare not say they are Antecedents or media ordinata Where you add what is that to you that make the righteousness of the Covenant of grace to be made ours upon our godly working c. I answer 1. I have shewed it is as much as I say if not more upon intending but a condition or medium ordinatum 2. I never said what you say I maintain in phrase or sense if the word made intend either efficiency or any causality or the first possession of Righteousness 3. You much use the harsh phrase of working as here Godly working as mine which I doubt whether ever I uttered or used And the term works I little use but in the explication of James For I told you that I disclaim works in Pauls sense Rom. 4.4 which make the reward not of grace but of debt You add If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith hath no peculiar instrumentality in our justification but what other graces have then you had hit the mark Answ I confess Sir you now come to the point in difference But do you not hereby confess that I give no more to works then you but only less to faith Why then do you still harp upon the word works as if I did give more to them the task you now set me is to prove that faith doth no more and not that works do so much That faith is not an instrument and not that love or obedience are conditions And to this I answer you 1. I have in my book said somewhat to prove faith no instrument of justifying and you said nothing against it Why then should I aim at this mark 2. I think I have proved there that faith justifieth primarily and properly as the condition of the Covenant and but remotely as A receiving justification this which you call the instrumentality being but the very formal nature of the act and so the quasi materia or its aptitude to the office of Justifying And because I build much on this supposition I put it in the Queries which you judge impertinent 3. Yet if you will understand the word instrument laxely I have not any where denyed faith to have such an instrumentality that is receiving or apprehensiveness above other graces Only I deny and most confidently deny that that is the formal proper or neerest cause of faith's justifying But the formal reason is because God hath made it the condition of the Covenant promising justification to such receiving which else would have no more justified then any other act And therefore so far as others are made conditions and the promise to us on them they must needs have some such use as well as faith And that they are conditions you confess as much as I. 4. But what if I be mistaken in this point what is the danger If faith should deserve the name of an instrument when I think it is but a condition 1. Is it any danger to give less to faith then others while I give no less to Christ For if you should think I gave less to Christ then others I should provoke you again and again to shew wherein 2. I deny nothing that Scripture saith It saith not that faith is an instrument perhaps you will tell me Veronius argues thus But I mean it is neither in the letter nor plain sense and then I care not who speaks it if true 3. You make man an efficient cause of justifying himself For the instrument is an efficient cause And what if I dare not give so much to man is there any danger in it or should I be spoke against for the Doctrine of obedience as if I gave more to man then you when I give so much less 4. Those that dissent from me do make the very natural act of faith which is most essential to it and inseparable from it as it from it self viz. Its apprehension of Christs Righteousness to be the proper primary reason of its justifying What if I dare not do so but give that glory to God and not to the nature of our own act and say that Fides quae recipit Justificat sed non qua recipit primarily but as it is the condition which the free justifier hath conferred this honour upon is there any danger in this and will there be joy in heaven for reducing a man from such an opinion You say What more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato which are not in actu justificationis The fastning the head to the body c. Answ 1. You said before that they are Antecedents Media ordinata and then they are sure conditions in justificando as well as in justificato 2. Your mention of the condition in homine vidente is besides our business and is only of a natural condition or qualification in genere naturae When we are speaking only of an active condition in genere moris The former is improperly the later properly called a condition 3. If this be your meaning I confess there are many natural or passive qualifications necessary which are no active or proper moral conditions in a Law-sense But this is nothing to the matter 4. The phrases of Conditions in justificato in actu justificationis are ambiguous and in the Moral sense improper Our question is whether they are conditions ad justificationem recipiendam Which yet in regard of time are in actu justificationis but not conditiones vel qualificationes ipsius actus And if you did not think that repentance is a condition ad justificationem recipiendam and so in actu justificationis how can you say it is medium ordinatum A medium as such essentially hath some tendency or conducibleness to its end 5. As obvious therefore as you think this is it is past the reach of my dull apprehension to conceive of your conditions in a judiciary sense which are in justificato for the obtaining of justification and not be both ad actum in actu justificationis for I suppose you are more accurate and serious then by the word condition to mean modum vel affectionem entis Metaphysicam vel subjecti alicujus adjunctum vel qualificationem in sense Physico when we are speaking only of conditions in sensu forensi And there are many thousand honest Christians as dull as I and therefore I do not think it can be any weighty point of faith which must be supported by such subtilties which are past our reach though obvious to yours God useth not to hang mens salvation on such School distinctions which few men can understand 6. And every such Tyro in Philosophy as I cannot reach your Phylosophical subtilty neither to understand that the fastning of the head to the body is not conditio in actu videntis though it be nothing to our purpose Indeed we may think it of more remote use
judgement of the Orthodox that they go eadem via et si non eadem semita I answer you may understand your distinction as you please but I have shewed the difference some understand it of justification before God others before men c. And if you please to make the way wide enough you may take me among the Orthodox that go eadem via if not I will stand out with James When you say they exclude works under any notion in the act of justification I answer 1. Your self include them as antecedents and concomitants thought I do not 2. I have shewed before that in the act c. is ambiguous If you mean as Agents of Causes so do I exclude them If you mean as conditions required by the new Law to the continuing and consummating our justification I have shewed you that Divines do judge otherwise My next answer was If works under any notion be excluded then faith is excluded You reply 1. Thus Bellarmine c. Answ I knew indeed that Bellarmine saith so But Sir you speak to one that is very neer Gods tribunal and therefore is resolved to look after naked truth and not to be affrighted from it by the name either of Bellarmine or Antichrist and who is at last brought to wink at prejudice I am fully resolved by Gods grace to go on in the way of God as he discovereth it to me and not to turn out of it when Bellarmine stands in it Though the Divels believe I will by Gods help believe too and not deny Christ because the Divels confess him You say Non sequitur I prove the consequence If all works or acts be excluded under any notion whatsoever and if faith be a work or act then faith is excluded But c. Ergo c. By the reason of your denyal I understand and nothing that you deny but that faith is a work or act which I never heard denyed before and I hope never shall do again The common answer to Bellarmine is that faith which is a work justifieth but not as it is a work Which answer I confess to be sound and subscribe to it But then according to that faith which is a work justifieth under some notion suppose it were under the notion of an instrument though not under the notion of a work But you go another way and say 1. Faith is passive in its instrumentality and though to believe be a grammatical action its verbum activum yet its physicè or huper physice passive A man by believing doth not operari but recipere As videre audire are Grammatical actions but physical or natural passions c. Answer 1. These are very sublime Assertions quite past the reach of my capacity and of all theirs that I use to converse with and I dare say it is no Heresie to deny them nor can that point be neer the foundation that stands upon such props which few men can apprehend 2. What if Faith were passive in its Instrumentality Is it not at all an Act therefore If it be Then that which is an Act or Work is not excluded under the notion of a passive Instrument and so not under every notion I speak on your grounds But because you told me before that I should have spent my self against this Instrumentality of Faith if I would hit the mark I will speak the more largely to it now And 1. Enquire whether videre audire be only Grammatical Actions as you call them and natural passions 2. Whether Believing be so only verbum activum but Physically passive And so to Believe is not agere but pati or recipere 3. Whether faith be passive in its Instrumentality 4. Whether the same may not be said as truly of other Graces 5. Whether Faith be any proper Instrument of our Justification 6. If it were Whether that be the primary formal Reason of its justifying vertue 7. Whether your Opinion or mine be the plainer or safer And for the first I should not think it worth the looking after but that I perceive you lay much upon it and that Philosophers generally suppose that the Sence and Intellect in this are alike and for ought I discern it is such a Passiveness of the Intellect that you intend and therefore we may put all together and enquire whether videre intelligere be only Passions And here you know how ill Philosophers are agreed among themselves and therefore how slippery a ground this is for a man to build his Faith upon in so high point as this in hand you know also that Hippocrates Galen Plato Plotinus with the generality of the Platonists are directly contrary to you you know also that Albertus Magnus and his followers judge sensation to be an action though they take the potentia to be passive You know also that Aquinas with his followers judge the very potentia to be active as well as passive passive while it receiveth the species and active Dum per ipsam agit sensationem producit And Tolet saith that this is Scotus his sentence 2. de Anima q. 12. Capreol ferè communis I know Aquinas saith that intelligere est quoddam pati but he taketh pati in his third wide improper sense as omne qu d exit de potentia in actum potest dici pati 1. q. 79 a. 2. C. And no doubt every second cause may be said to suffer even in its acting as it receiveth the Influx from the first which causeth it to act but it will not thence follow that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videre intelligere est for maliter pati I cannot think that you deny the intellectum agentem and you know that generally Philosophers attribute Action to the possible Intellect and that Jandun Apollina c. do accordingly make an Agent and patient sence and if the reception of the species were formaliter visio intellectio which I believe not yet how hardly is it proved that the Organ and Intellect are only passive in that reception Yea how great a controversie is it what the sensible and intelligible species are Yea and whether there be any such thing Whether they be an image or similitude begotten or caused by the Object as Combacchius and most which yet Suarez c. denyeth And whether they stick in the air and have all their Being first there as Magyrus and other Peripateticks Or whether their Being is only in the eye as some later Or whether it be Sir Ken. Digbyes Atomes or number of small bodies which are in perpetual motion I doubt not you know that Ockam and Henricus quod lib. 4. q. 4. reject all species as vain and make the Intellect the only active proper cause of intellection And Hobs of late in his book of humane Nature saith that visible and intelligible species is the greatest Paradox in the world as being a plain Impossibility And indeed it is somewhat strange that every stone and clod should be
only an ineptitudo materiei which is in all alike at first and so all should be alike rejecters 7. If to believe be but Pati then it is God and not man that should be perswaded For perswasion is either to Action or forbearing Action and God is the Agent But it is in vain to perswade any to be Passive except it be not to strive against it This therefore would overthrow much of the use of the Ministry 8. And then when Christ so extolleth doing the will of God and doing his Commandments c. you will exclude justifying faith as being no doing 9. Is it credible that when Christ cals faith Obeying the Gospel and saith This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom the father hath sent and calls it the work of faith 2 Thes 1.11 and saith God giveth to will that is to believe and to do c. that all this is meant of meer Passion I undertake to bring forty places of Scripture that shew faith to be Action 10. It seemeth to me so great a debasing of faith as to make it to be no vertue at all nor to have any moral good in it For though I have read of Passio perfectiva in genere entis vel naturae and conducible to vertue Yet am I not convinced yet that any Passion as such hath any moral vertue in it Indeed Passion may be the quasi materiale but the vertue is in Action Yea even in non-acting as silence the vertue lies formally in the actual exercise of the Authority of Reason and so obeying God in causing that silence Sure if men shall be all judged according to their works and according to what they have done c. then it will not be because they did either Pati vel non pati And thus you have some of my reasons why I cannot believe that Believing is passion nor shall believe it I think till Credere be Pati and then I may whether I will or no because pati vel non pati are not in my choice 3. The third Question is Whether faith be passive in its instrumentality And I think that is out of doubt if my former arguing have proved that faith is not passive at all or if I next prove that faith is no physical instrument But yet if I should grant both that faith is passive and that it is an Instrument yet must I have either more or less Logick before I can believe that it is passive in its instrumentality My reasons against it are these 1. Every Instrumental cause is an efficient cause but all true efficiency is by action therefore all instrumentality is by action That causalitas efficientis est Actio haec est forma per quam denominatur efficiens quia agens efficiens sunt idem c. I have been taught so oft and so confidently that I believe it For oportet discentem credere and that by Philosophers of no mean esteem as Suarez Tom. 1. disp 18. § 10. Javel Metaph l. 9. q. 16. Conim Colleg. Phys l. 2. q. 6. art 2. 7. Scaliger Exerit 254. Aquinas Ruvio Porrece Melancth Zanchius Zabarel Pererius Schibler Stierius Gu. Tempell in Ram. with many more And if there be no such thing in rerum natura as a Passive instrument then faith is none such I know Keckerm Alsted Burgersdicius do talk of a Passive instrument but I think in proper speech it is a contradiction in adjecto and say as Schibler Metaphys l. 1. cap. 22. Tit. 7. p. 319. Nisi Actionem propriam haberet Instrumentum efficiens non esset proinde passivum instrumentum quod Keckerm vocat revera instrumentum non est Et ut Idem Topic. cap. 2. num 34. Instrumentum totum hoc habet quod ad causam efficientem adjuvantem ad quam referimus causam instrumentalem requiritur Ratio enim communis illarum est haec Deservire operationi principalis agentis per ulteriorem operationem Et Idem Topic. cap. 2. num 6. Quer. An efficientis Causalitas Actio Resp Ita ponitur in Theor. 36. sentit it a hâ—die Maxima pars Logicorum Metaphysicorum Vide ultra pro confirmatione ad nu 9. Sic etiam cap. 3. num 136. So that if most Logicians judge that there is no passive instrument and consequently that faith is no passive instrument then who is more singular you or I For sure Nihil est falsum in Theologia quod verum est in Philosophia I deny not but the soul in believing is both Passive and instrumental but in several respects as if Camero's way should hold of infusing grace into the will Mediante actione intellectus then the intellect would be Passive or receiving grace into it self and an instrument of conveying it to the will but then it would be no Passive but an Active instrument and the action of God on the Passive intellect and of the intellect on the will are two Actions with distinct effects 2. Though there were such a thing in the world as a Passive instrument yet that faith should be such and that physical I dare say is either an unfit assertion or else I am of a stupid apprehension For there must be found in it if it were such these four requisites 1. There must be a physical passion or reception 2. A physical efficiency 3. This efficiency must be patiendo non agendo 4. And it must be such an efficiency as is proper to instruments I may not stand to enquire exactly into all these 1. The first I have confuted already and shall add this much more 1. What doth faith thus receive 2. How doth it receive it 3. Whence Or from what Agent and Act 1. Is it Christ himself that is physically received by faith 1. Who dare say so but the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation men and perhaps not they Christ is in Heaven and we on earth A multitude of blasphemers Libertines and Familists I lately meet with that dream of this but no sober man 2. And indeed if Christs person were thus received it would not make a man righteous or justifie him As all our Divines say his being in the body of Mary would not have justified her Nor did the kissing of his lips justifie Judas nor eating and drinking in his presence justifie those that must depart from him for working iniquity Matthew 7. If we had so known Christ we should know him no more It was necessary to his Disciples that he should go from them we must not have the Capernaites conceit of eating his flesh Yea to talk of a physical receiving by faith is far grosser For the mouth was capable of that physical contact which faith is not 3. And then this will not stand with their Judgement that blame me for making Christ himself the object of justifying faith and not the promise directly 2. If you say that the thing received is Christs righteousness as most do that I read I
will and thence it is that faith is deputed to its office 2. Who doubteth but God could have bestowed pardon and justification on other terms or conditions if he would 3. Yea who doubteth but he might have given them without any condition even that of acceptance Yea though we had never known that there had been a Redeemer yet God might have justified us for his sake I speak not what he may now do after he resolved of a course in his Covenant But doubtless he might have made the Covenant to be an absolute promise without any condition on our part if he would even such as the Antinomians dream it to be And me thinks those great Divines that say with Twisse Châ—mier Walaeus c. that God might have pardoned us without a Redeemer should not deny this especially 4. And doubtless that faith which the Israelites in the first ages were justified by did much differ from ours now whatever that doth which is required of poor Indians now that never heard of Christ 5 And God pardoneth and justifieth Infants without any actual reception of pardon by their faith 2. And me thinks they that stand for the instrumentality of faith above all should not deny this for according to my Logick the formality of an Instrument is in its actual subserviency to the principal cause and therefore it is no longer causa instrumentalis then it is used and therefore whatsoever is the materia of the instrument or whatsoever is natural to it cannot be its form Now to be a reception or apprehension of Christ is most essentially natural to this act of faith and therefore cannot be the form of its instrumentality For as Scotus saith â—n 4. sint dist 1. q. 5. Fol. mihi 13. H. â—â—ru mentiiâ—â—nâ—itâ—s pâ—aeceda naturaliter usum ejus ut instrumentum And what is the 〈◊〉 or Aptitude of faith but this And as Scotus ibid. saith Nullum instrumentum formaliter est ideo aptum ad usum quia al quis utitur eo ut instrumento but it is an Instrument quia al quis utitur c. 3. And if the reception were the most direct proper cause especially if the physical reception then it would follow that justifying faith â—as such is the receiving of justification or of Christs righteousness but for the receiving of Christ himself or that the receiving of Christ would be but a preparatory act which is I dare say foul and false Doctrine and contrary to the scope of Scripture which makes Christ himself the object of this faith and the receiving of him John 1.11 12. and believing in him to be the condition of justification and the receiving of righteousness but secondarily or remotely Amesius saith ubi supra hic tamen observandum est accurate loquendo apprehensionem Christi justitiae ejus esse fidem justificantem quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi apprehentio justificationis ut possessionis nostrae praesentis fructus est effectum apprehensionis prioris So in his Medulla he makes Christ himself the object of justifying faith 4. Also if the said reception were the immediate proper reason why faith justifyeth then it would follow that it is one act of faith whereby we are pardoned viz the reception of pardon and another whereby we are justified viz. the Reception either of righteousness or justification and there must be another act of faith for Adoption and another for every other use according to the variety of the Objects But this is a vain fiction it being the same believing in Christ to which the Promise of Remission Justification Adoption Glorification and all is made Also it would contradict the Doctrine of our best Divines who say â—s Alste dius Distinct Theol. C. 17. p. 73. that Christ is our Righteousness in sensu causali sed non in sensu formali I conclude this with the plain Testimony of our best Writers Perkins vol. 1. pag. 662. In the true Gain saith And lest any should imagine that the very Act of faith in apprehending Christ justifieth we are to understand that faith doth not apprehend by Power from it self but by vertue of the Covenant If a man believe the Kingdom of France to be his it is not therefore his yet if he belive Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ to be his it is his indeed not simply because he believes but because he believes upon Commandment and Promise that is not properly as an Instrument but as a condition For in the tenor of the Covenant God promiseth to impute the Obedience of Christ to us for our Righteousness if we believe Is not this as plain as may be So Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. p. mihi 44. We say faith justifieth for it self not as it is a quality in our mind or our own work but as faith is a gift of Gods grace having the promise of righteousness and life c. Therefore faith justifieth for Christ and from the grace and Covenant of God This being therefore fully proved that faith justifieth properly and directly as the condition on which God hath made over Christ and all his benefits in the Gospel the two great points opposed in my Doctrine do hence arise unavoidably 1. That this faith justifieth as truly and directly as it is the receiving of Christ for Lord and King and Head and Husband as for a justifier for both are equally the conditions in the Gospel But if the physical Instrumental way were sound then it would justifie only as it is a receiving of Justification or Justice This is the main conclusion I contest for Yield me this and I will not so much stick at any of the rest 2. And hence it follows that Repentance forgiving others love to Christ Obedience Evangelical do so far justifie as the Gospel-promise makes them conditions and no further do I plead for them 7. My last Question was Whether now your Doctrine or mine be the more obscure doubtfull and dangerous And which is the more clear certain and safe And here I shall first shew you yet more what my Judgement is and therein whether Faith be a moral Instrument I think that conditio sine quâ non non potest esse efficiens quia hujus nulla est actio nec id ad cujus presentiam aliquid contigit câ—tra illius actionem nec materialis dispositio est Instrumentum c. ut Schibler Top. c. 3. pag. 102. Even the Gospel-Promise which is far more properly called Gods moral Instrument of justifying or pardoning is yet but somewhat to the making up that fundamentum from whence the relation of justified doth result And the Fundamentum is called a cause of the relation which ariseth from it without any act but what went to cause the foundation even by a meer resultancy as D' Orbellis fully in 1. sent dist 17. q. 1. But to call a condition in Law an Instrument is yet far more improper The Law or Promise
of our sight to be our Saviour Soveraign by redemption and Husband even here in our native Country the match being moved to us by his Embassadors and imperfectly solemnized upon our cordial consent and giving up our selves to him by our Covenant but it shall be perfectly solemnized at the great Marriage of the Lamb. This is my faith of the nature of true justifying faith and the manner of its receiving Christ THE Reader must understand that after this I had a personal conference with this Dear and Reverend Brother wherein he still owned and insisted on the passiveness of Justifying faith viz. That it is but a Grammatical action or nominal and a physical or hyperpyhsical passion which also he giveth us again in the Treatise of Imputation of righteousness FINIS A DISPVTATION Proving the Necessity of a two-fold Righteousness to Justification and Salvation And defending this and many other Truths about Iustifying Faith its Object and Office against the confident but dark Assaults of Mr. Iohn Warner By Richard Baxter Acts 5.31 Him hath Gad axalted with his right hand a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sins Rom. 4.22 23 24 25. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was Imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we Believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our Justification LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether Besides the Righteousness of Christ Imputed there be a Personal Evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salvation Affirm THough it hath pleased a late Opponent Mr. Warner to make the Defence of this Proposition necessary to me yet I shall suppose that I may be allowed to be brief both because of what I have formerly said of it and because the Question is so easily decided and Christians are so commonly agreed on it For the right understanding of what we here maintain its necessary that I explain the Terms and remove confusion by some necessary distinctions and lay down my sense in some Propositions that make to the opening of this To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in several Languages that signifie Righteousness or Justification would be a needless loss of time it being done to our hands by so many and we being so far agreed on it that here lyeth no part of our present controversie The Form of Righteousness signified by the name is Relative as strait or crooked is For it is not the Habit of Justice by which we give every man his own that is the Subject of our Question but Righteousness in a Judicial or Legal sense 1. Righteousness is either of the cause or of the person Not that these are subjects actually separated but distinct the one being subordinate to the other The cause is the nearest subject and so far as it is just and justifiable so far the person is just and justifiable Yet the person may otherwise be just and justified when one or many causes are unjustifyable 2. Righteousness is denominated either from a Relation to the Precept of the Law or to the Sanction To be righteous in Relation to the Precept is to be conform to that Precept An Action or Disposition conform to the Precept is called a Righteous Action or Disposition and from thence the person being so far conform is called a Righteous person And so this Righteousness as to the positive precept is his obeying it and as to the prohibition it is his Innocency contrary to that guilt which we call Reatus culpae Righteousness as a Relation to the Sanction is either a Relation to the Commination and penal Act of the Law or to the promissory or Premiant Act. As to the former Righteousness is nothing but the Not-dueness of the punishment contrary to the Reatus poenae as it respects the execution and so A not being lyable to condemnation as it respects the sentence This is sometime founded in the persons Innocency last mentioned sometime on a free pardon or acquittance sometime on satisfaction made by himself And sometime on satisfaction by another conjunct with free pardon which is our case Righteousness as a Relation to the Promise or Premiant part of the Sanction is nothing but our Right to the Reward Gift or Benefit as pleadable and justifyable in foro Which sometime is founded in merit of our own sometime in a free Gift sometime in the merit of another conjunct with free Gift which is our case other cases concern us not This last mentioned is Righteousness as a Relation to the substance of the Promise or Gift But when the Promise or Gift or Testament or Premiant Law is conditional as in our case it is then there is another sort of Righteousness necessary which is Related to the Modus promissionis and that is The performance of the condition which if it be not properly called Righteousness Ethically yet civilly in a Judiciary sense it is when it comes to be the cause to be tryed and Judged whether the person have performed the condition then his cause is just or unjust and he just or unjust in that respect 3. Righteousness is either Vniversal as to all causes that the person can be concerned in or it is only particular as to some causes only and so but secundum quid to the person 4. A particular Righteousness may either be such as the total welfare of a man depends on or it may be of less and inconsiderable moment 5. When a cause subordinate to the main cause is Righteous this may be called a subordinate Righteousness But if it be part of the main cause it is a partial righteousness co-ordinate I will not trouble you with so exact a disquisition of the Nature of Righteousness and Justification as I judge fit in it self both because I have a little heretofore attempted it and because I find it blamed as puzling curiosity or needless distinguishing Though I am not of that mind yet I have no minde to be troublesome As for the term Justification 1. It either may signifie the Act of the Law or Promise or the sentence of the Judge or the Execution of that sentence For to one of these three sences the word may still be reduced as we shall have to do with it that is to constitutive or sentential or Executive Justification though the sentence is most properly so called To these Justification by Plea Witness c. are subservient 2. Justification is either opposed to a false Accusation or to a true 3. In our case Justification is either according to the Law of works or to the Law of Grace I think we shall at this time have no great need
us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead So Jam. 2.23 Gal. 3.6 If any say that by Faith in all these Texts is meant Christs righteousness and not Faith I will beleive them when I take Scripture to be intelligible only by them and that God did not write it to have it understood But that Faith is imputed or accounted to us for Righteousness in a sense meerly subordinate to Christs righteousness by which we are justified I easily grant As to Satisfaction and Merit we have no righteousness but Christs but a Covenant and Law we are still under and not redeemed to be lawless and this Covenant is ordained as the way of making over Christ and his meritorious righteousness and life to us and therefore they being given or made over on Covenant-terms there is a personal performance of the conditions necessary and so that personal performance is all the righteousness inherent or propiae actionis that God requireth of us now whereas by the first Covenant perfect Obedience was required as necessary to life So that in point of meer personal performance our own Faith is accepted and imputed or accounted to us for Righteousness that is God will require no more as necessary to Justification at our own hands but that we believe in the righteousness of another and accept a Redeemer though once he required more But as to the satisfying of the Justice of the offended Majesty and the meriting of life with pardon c. So the Righteousness of Christ is our only Righteousness But nothing in Scripture is more plain then that Faith it self is said to be accounted to us for Righteousness and not only Christs own righteousness He that will not take this for proof must expect no Scripture proof of any thing from me Eph. 4.24 The new man after God is created in righteousness Many other Texts do call our first Conversion or state of Grace our faith and repentance and our sincere obedience by the name of Righteousness 2. And then that it may and that most fitly be called an Evangelical righteousness I will not trouble the Reader to prove lest I seem to censure his understanding as too stupid It s easie to try whether our Faith and Repentance our Inherent Righteousness do more answer the Precepts and Promise of Christ in the Gospel or those of the Law of works 3. And that this is a personal righteousness I have less need to prove Though it is Christ that purchased it and so it may be called the righteousness of Christ and the Spirit that worketh it in us yet it s we that are the Subjects and the Agents as to the act It being therefore past doubt that 1. The thing it self is existent and necessary 2. That righteousness is a fit name for it 3. All that remains to be proved is the Use of it Whether it be necessary to Justification and Salvation And here the common agreement of Divines except the Antinomians doth save us the labour of proving this for they all agree that Faith and Repentance are necessary to our first Justification and that sincere obedience also is necessary to our Justification at Judgement and to our Salvation So that here being no conteoversie I will not make my self needless work Obejct 1. But faith and repentance are not necessary to Justification qua justitia quaedam Evangelica under the notion of a righteousness but faith as an Instrument and repentance as a qualifying condition Answ 1. We are not now upon the question under what notion these are necessary It sufficeth to the proof of our present Thesis that a personal Evangelical Righteousness is necessary whether quâ talis or not 2. But the plain truth is 1. Remotely in respect of its natural Aptitude to its office faith is necessary because it is a Receiving Act and therefore fitted to a free Gift and an Assenting Act and therefore fitted to a supernatural Revelation And hence Divines say It justifieth as an Instrument calling its Receptive nature Metaphorically an Instrument which in this sense is true And Repentance is necessary because it is that Return to God and recovery of the soul which is the end of Redemption without which the following ends cannot be attained The Receptive nature of Faith and the dispositive use of Repentance may be assigned as Reasons Why God made them conditions of the Promise as being their aptitude thereto 2. But the nearest reason of their Interest and Necessity is because by the free constitution of God they are made conditions in that Promise that conferreth Justification and Salvation determining that without these they shall not be had and that whoever believeth shall not perish and if we repent our sins shall be forgiven us So that this is the formal or nearest Reason of their necessity and interest that they are the conditions of the Covenant so made by the free Donor Promimiser Testator Now this which in the first instant and consideration is a condition is in the next instant or consideration a true Evangelical Righteousness as that Condition is a Duty in respect to the Precept and as it is our Title to the benefit of the Promise and so is the Covenant-performance and as it hath respect to the sentence of Judgement where this will be the cause of the day Whether this Condition was performed or not It is not the Condition as imposed but as performed on which we become justified And therefore as sentential Justification is past upon the proof of this personal Righteousness which is our performance of the condition on which we have Title to Christ and Pardon and eternal life even so our Justification in the sense of the Law or Covenant is on supposition of this same performance of the Condition as such which is a certain Righteousness If at the last Judgement we are sententially justified by it as it is quaedam justitia a Righteousness subordinate to Christs Righteousness which is certain then in Law-sense we are justifiable by it on the same account For to be justified in point of law is nothing else then to be justifiable or justificandus by sentence and execution according to that Law so that its clear that a personal Righteousness qua talis is necessary to Justification and not only quo talis though this be beyond our Quest on in hand and therefore I add it but for elucidation and ex abundanti Object 2. If this be so then men are righteous before God doth justifie them Answ 1. Not with that Righteousness by which he justifieth them 2. Not Righteousness simply absolutely or universally but only secundum quid with a particular Righteousness 3. This particular Righteousness is but the means to possess them of Christs Righteousness by which they are materially and fully justified 4. There is not a moments distance of time between them For as soon as we believe and repent we are
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
Evangelical as declared and given by the Gospel But the thing in question you now fully confess Mr. W. pag. 171. That we our selves are not the subjects of Evangelical righteousness I shall endeavour to prove by thesâ— Arguments 1. If our Evangelical righteousness be out of us in Christ then it is not in â—â— consisting in the habit or Acts of faith and Gospel obedience but it is out of us in Christ Answ We shall have such another piece of work with this point as the former to defend the truth against a man that layeth about him in the dark 1. I have oft enough distinguisht of Evangelical righteousness The righteousness conform to the Law and revealed and given by the Gospel is meritoriously and materially out of us in Christ The righteousness conform to the Gospel as constituting the condition of life He that believeth shall not perish Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out This is in our selves materially and not out of us in Christ Mr. W. 2. If satisfaction to Divine Justice were not given or caused by any thing in us but by Christ alone then Evangelical righteousness is in Christ alone But Ergo without blood no remission Answ Your proof of the consequence is none but worse then silence Besides the satisfaction of Justice and remission of sin thereby there is a subservient Gospel righteousness as is proved and is undeniable Mr. W. 3. If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves then perfect righteousness is in our selves But that 's not so Ergo. Answ Still you play with the ambiguity of a word and deny that which beseems you not to deny that the fulfilling of the condition Believe and Live is a Gospel-righteousness particular and subservient and imperfect The Saints have an Inherent righteousness which is not Legal therefore it is Evangelical If you say it s no righteousness you renounce the constant voice of Scripture If you say it is a Legal righteousness imperfect then you set up Justification by the works of the Law the unhappv fate of blind opposition to do what they intend to undo For there is no righteousness which doth not justifie or make righteous in tantum and so you would make men justified partly by Christ and partly by a Legal righteousness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evangelical righteousness without any cause in the world but darkness jealousie and humorous contentious zeal Yea more then so we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for were we judged by it And yet will you say that faith or inherent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical Mr. W. 4. If Evangelical righteousness were in ourselves and did consist either in the habit or act of faith and new obedience then upon the intercision of those acts our Justification would discontinue But Answ If you thought not your word must go for proof you would never sure expect that we should believe your Consequence For 1. What shew is there of reason that the intercision of the act should cause the cessation of that Justification which is the consequent of the Habit which you put in your Antecedent The Habit continueth in our sleep when the acts do not 2. As long as the cause continueth which is Christs Merits and the Gospel-Grant Justification will continue if the condition be but sincerely performed For the Condition is not the cause much less a Physical cause But the condition is sincerely performed though we believe not in our sleep I dare not instance in your payment of Rent left a Carper be upon mâ— back but suppose you give a man a lease of Lands on condition he come once a moneth or week or day and say I thank you or in general on condition he be thankful Doth his Title cease as oft as he shuts his lips from saying I thank you These are strange Doctrines Mr. W. 5. If Evangelical righteousness were in our selves and faith with our Gospel obedience were that righteousness then he who hath more or less faith or obedience were more or less justified and more or less Evangelically righteous according to the degrees of faith and obedience Answ I deny your Consequence considering faith and repentance as the Condition of the Promise because it is the sincerity of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition and not the degree and therefore he that hath the least degree of sincere faith hath the same title to Christ as he that hath the strongest 2. But as faith and obedience respect the Precept of the Gospel and not the Promise so it is a certain truth that he that hath most of them hath most Inherent Righteousness Mr. W. 6. That opinion which derogates from the Glory and Excellency of Christ above all Graces and from the excellency of Faith in its Office of justifying above other Graces ought not to be admitted But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteousness in the habit act or Grace of faith and Gospel obedience derogates from both Christ and Faith Answ Your Minor is false and your proof is no proof but your word Your similitude should have run thus If an Act of Oblivion by the Princes purchase do pardon all that will thankfully accept it and come in and lay down arms of Rebellion it is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to say I accept it I stand out no longer and therefore it is mine If you offer to heal a deadly sore on condition you be accepted for the Chyrurgion doth it derogate from your honour if your Patient say I do consent and take you for my Chyrurgion and will take your Medicines Your proof is as vain and null that it derogates from faith What that Faith should be this subservient Righteousness Doth that dishonour it Or is it that Repentance is conjoyned as to our first Justification and obedience as to that at Judgement When you prove either of these dishonourable to faith we will believe you but it must be a proof that is stronger then the Gospel that is against you We confess faith to be the receiving Condition and repentance but the disposing Condition but both are Conditions As for Phil. 3.9 Do you not see that it is against you I profess with Paul not to have a righteousness of my own which is of the Law which made me loth to call faith and repentance a legal righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Faith you see is the means of our Title to Christs Righteousness And if you deny faith it self to be any particular Righteousness you must make it a sin or indifferent and contradict the Scriptures And presently contradicting what you have been arguing for that Evangelical Righteousness is not in us and we are not the Subjects of it You profess pag. 178. That Inherent Righteousness is in us It seems then either Inherent righteousness is not righteousness or it is
justified in co-ordination with Christs merits by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can so justifie him and by repenting of those sins that have condemned him and by desiring loving hoping in Christ alone for his Justification or by Thankfulness to God for justifying him by the sole merits of Christ And is it not a strange Exposition that feigneth Paul to mean and exclude such acts as these under the name of works But yet really if such a man be to be found that doth think to merit Justification by denying such merit I am against him as well as you His third Argument is If faith justifie only as the beginning of our Justification then there are degrees of Justification but there are no degrees Ergo. Answer 1. Faith is neither the Beginning nor End of Justification but a means of it 2. If you would insinuate that I deny faith to be the means of our continued as well as begun Justification you deal deceitfully 3. I deny your Consequence It may prove more necessary to the Continuance of our Justification then to its beginning and yet prove no degrees 4. But how Justification hath or hath not Degrees I have told you before and fuller in other writings His fourth Argument is Because good works do not precede but follow Justification Answer 1. Repentance and the Love of God in Christ and faith in Christ as Lord and Head and Teacher do go before the pardon of sin and so before Justification 2. External obedience goeth before Justification at Judgement and Justification as continued here Did you doubt of these His fifth Argument is that These two Justifications overthrow each other If by one we have peace with God what need the other How can good works perfect our Justification being themselves imperfect Answer All this is answered in the second Disputation 1. It s no contradiction to be justified by God by Christ by Faith by Words by Works if God be to be believed that affirmeth all 2. As imperfect faith may be the condition of pardon so may imperfect Repentance and imperfect Obedience of our sentential Absolution Pag. 233. He answereth the Objection Blessedness is ascribed to other Graces thus Not as if Happiness were in them per se but only as they are signs Answer Promising is more then Ascrbing It s a great advantage for you to have the forming of your Objections 2. Happiness per se is as much in Love as in Faith and more 3. Other Graces are media means which is more then only works Pag. 241. He proves that works justifie not subordinate to Faith thus Argument 1. No good works were found till faith had done its Works Answer 1. Faith hath not done its work till death we are not justified only by the first act of faith but by after-acts to the Death 2. Faith in Christ as Head and Lord and Teacher and Desire and Repentance were found before Faith had justified us 3. Obedience is found before the sentential Justification or the continuation of our first received Righteousness His second Argument is Because good works are the effects of Faith and Justification and therefore cannot be the cause Answer 1. They are none of the cause at all It s not well to intimate that we hold them the cause as in despight of all our own denyals 2. They are not so much as Means or Antecedents of that part of Justification of which they are the effect The act of faith which you will exercise before your death is as true a condition or Instrument if you will needs call it so of your Justification as continued as your first act of faith was of your Justification as begun And yet that act of faith is but fruit of your first Justification as well as Obedience is His third Argument is that If Gospel Obedience and good works do subordinately act with faith to the effecting of Justification then the Justification which proceedeth from both must be of a different kind and nature Answer 1. Neither faith nor work effect Justification 2. Justification by Promise and Gift and Justification by Sentence Plea c. are much different 3. But your consequence is nothing worth For these are not causes but conditions And if they were yet different causes may concur to the same effect which never man before you denyed that I know of Our case is as if to a Rebell that hath forfeited Life and Estate the King upon a Ransom grant him both on condition that he thankfully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ransom and to hold them on condition that he often do his Homage to the King and return not to Rebellion Doth the first acceptance here serve turn for continuance of what is first received without the following Homage and Fidelity or do the different parts of the condition make such a difference in the benefit as you here take the Monstrous Justification to be as you rashly call it Another Argument is If faith be a total cause or condition of producing the effect of Justification then there 's no want of obedience for its assistance Answer 1. Faith or obedience are no causes of pardon 2. I will not trouble the Reader to open the shame of that Philosophy which you make such ostentation of Only I would remember you that causes total in suo genere may have others under them And that it followeth not that the sun shineth not or the fire heateth not or that you understand not and wrote not these words though I suppose you will say that God is Causa totalis of all these act nor yet that God doth use his creatures because of an insufficiency in himself 3. Faith taken for our becoming Believers Disciples Christians is the total condition of our first Receiving Justification 2. Faith taken more narrowly for our accepting Christs Righteousness is not the total Condition of our first Receiving of Justification 3. Obedience is part of the condition of the continuance of it and of our sentential Justification And whereas you talk over and over of Total causes and particular causes I tell you again they are no causes He adds that then Obedience doth nihil agere or actum agere Answer It doth nihil efficere But besides nihil and factum there 's two things oft mentioned Justification at Judgement and the non-amission of it here 3. He insipidly gain disputes that If an effect doth totally proceed from any cause then it totally depends on it And what then Therefore it solely dependeth on it And if these things were true what are they to our question But saith he When good works the fruit of faith are interrupted yet our Justification abides by the single influence of faith only as a total cause of its being and conservation Answer 1. Alas What would such Disputants do with the Church if Gods mercy did not hinder them By your own Argument now neither God nor Christ nor the Gospel are any
causes of our Justification For you say Faith is a Total cause and there can be but one Total Cause unless you lose the honor of your Philosophy 2. Faith is no proper cause at all 3. Did you not see what must needs be answered you That Faith is interrupted as well as Obedience and yet no intercision of our Justification When we sleep we do not at least alway act faith no more then obedience if so much And the habit of both continueth together sleeping and waking And if you should give over love and sincerity of obedience you would cease to be justified His last Argument is Because for sins after Conversion we must have recourse only by faith to Christ as our Advocate Answer 1. That speaks only of renewed pardon for particular sins but not of our Justification at Judgement nor the non-omission here 2. We must have recourse to Christ with Repentance and esteem and self-denial and desire c. as well as that act of faith which you plead for as the total cause And when you would set Zanchy against Zanchy you do but mis-understand him He saith truly with Paul that neither in whole or part are our own works such as Paul speaks of our Righteousness that is to answer the Law as Paul mentioneth or any way to merit or satisfie or stand in co-ordination with Christ But Zanchy never thought that Repentance and Faith in Christ as Head and Lord and Desire and Gratitude c. might be no means or Conditions of any sort of Justification or of that which we assert them to be means of I would answer much more of this Disputation but I am perswaded the judicious Reader will think I have done him wrong in troubling him with this much See pag. 298 299. how he answereth the Objection that pardon is promised to Repentance c. I will not disparage the Readers understanding so much as to offer him a Confutation of that and much more of the Book Only his many Arguments on the Question of my first Disputation I must crave your Patience while I examine briefly and I will tire you with no more Mr. W. pag. 411 412. I will rally up my Arguments against the foresaid Definition of Faith to be an accepting of Christ as Lord and Saviour proving that Christ only as Saviour and Priest offering himself up to the death of the Cross for our sins is the proper Object of justifying Faith as justifying Argument 1. If the Faith of the Fathers under the old Testament was directed to Christ as dying Priest and Saviour then also the Faith of Believers now ought so to be directed But. Ergo. Answ 1. I grant the whole and never made question of it But what kin is the conclusion of this Argument to that which you had to prove unless Only had been added Did we ever deny that Faith must be directed to Christ as Priest 2. A Saviour is a term respecting our whole Salvation and so Christ saveth by Teaching Ruling and judicial justifying as well as dying 3. The Fathers faith did not respect Christ as dying or satisfying only which you should prove but cannot Mr. W. Argument 2. If Christ as dying and as Saviour do satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie a sinners conscience then as dying and Saviour he is the Object of justifying Faith But Ergo. Answ The same answer serveth to this as to the last The conclusion is granted but nothing to the Question unless Only had been in 2. Christ as obeying actively and Christ as Rising and as interceding and as judging as King doth also justifie us Rom. 5.19 Rom. 4 24 25. Rom. 8.33.34 Mat. 12.37 and 25.34 40. Peruse these Texts impartially and be ignorant of this if you can 3. And yet the Argument will not hold that no act of faith is the condition of Justification but those whose object is considered only as justifying The accepting of Christ to sanctifie us is a real part of the condition of Justification Mr. W. Argument 3. If Christ as Lord be properly the Object of fear then he is not properly the Object of Faith as justifying But Ergo. Answ 1. If Properly be spoken de proprio quarto modo then is Christ properly the Object of neither that is he is not the object of either of these Only 2. But if properly be opposed to a tropical analogical or any such improper speech then he is the Object as Lord both of fear and faith and obedience c. 3. The deceit that still misleads most men in this point is in the terms of reduplication faith as justifying which men that look not through the bark do swallow without sufficient chewing and so wrong themselves and others by meer words Once more therefore understand that when men distinguish between fides quae justificans and qua justificans and say Faith which justifieth accepteth Christ as Head and Lord but faith as justifying taketh him only as a Priest The very distinction in the later branch of it qua justificans Is 1. Either palpable false Doctrine 2. And a meer begging of the Question 3. Or else co-incident with the other branch and so contradictory to their assertion For 1. The common Intent and meaning is that Fides quae credit in Christum justificat And so they suppose that Faith is to be denominated formally justificans ab objecto qua objectum And if this be true then fides qua fides justificat For the object is essential to faith in specie And so in their sense fides quae justificans is but the implication of this false Doctrine that haec fides in Christum crucifixum qua talis justificat Which I never yet met with sober Divine that would own when he saw it opened For the nature and essence of faith is but its aptitude to the office of justifying and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo promittendi that assigneth it its office The nature of faith is but the Dispositio materiae but it s nearest interest in the effect is as a condition of the Promise performed 2. But if by the quâ justificans any should intend no more then to define the nature materially of that faith which is the condition of Justification then the qua and the qua is all one and then they contradict their own Assertion that fides quâ justificans non recipit Christum ut Dominum 3. If the quâ should relate to the effect then it would only express a distinction between Justification and other Benefits and not between faith and faith For then quâ justistcans should be contradistinct only from qua sanctificans or the like And if so it is one and the same Faith and the same acts of faith that sanctifie and justifie As if a King put into a gracious act to a company of Rebels that they shall be pardoned honoured enriched and all upon condition of their thankfull acceptance of him and of this act
of Grace Here there is no room to distinguish of their Acceptance as if the acceptance of pardon were the condition of pardon and the acceptance of riches were the condition of their Riches c. But it is the same acceptance of their Prince and his Act of Grace that hath relation to the several consequent benefits may be called pardoning honouring enriching in several respects It is the same marriage of a Prince that makes a woman rich honourable c. So it is the same faith in whole Christ as Christ that is sanctifying and justifying as it relateth to the several Benefits that is it is the condition of both so that their quâ justifiâ—ans doth either intimate this untruth that haec fides quae talis id est qua fides in Christum crucifixum justificat which is true neither of one act nor other and so begs the Question or else it saith nothing So that I shall never admit this quae justificans without an Exposition and better then yet I have seen from any that use it Mr. W. Argument 4. That which is the sum and substance of Evangelical preaching is the object of Justifying Faith But Christ as crucified is the substance of Evangelical preaching Ergo. Answ 1. When I come to look for the conclusion which excluded Christ as Lord Teacher c. from being the object I can find no such thing in any Argument that yet I see They have the same fate as Mr. Blakes Arguments had to conclude no more then what I grant that is that Christ as crucified is the object of justifying faith But where 's the Only or any exclusive of the rest 2. But if it be implyed then 1. I say of the term crucified that Christ crucified to purchase sanctification and salvation is the object of that faith which is the condition of Justification and not only Christ crucified to procure Justification 2. I deny the Minor if by sum and substance you exclude Christ as Lord Teacher Judge Head c. Surely Evangelical preaching containeth Christs Resurrection Lord-ship Intercession c. as well as his death or else the Apostles preached not the Gospel This needs no proof with them that have read the Bible Mr. W. Argum. 5. That which we should desire to know above all things is that Object of justifying faith But that is Christ crucified Ergo. Answ 1. Still the Question wanting in the conclusion Who denyeth that Christ crucified is the object of justifying faith 2. But if only be here understood really doth not this Brother desire to know Christ obeying Christ risen Christ teaching ruling interceding c I do Mr. W. Argument 6. That in Christ is the object of faith as justifying which being apprehended doth justifie us But the death suffering blood obedience of Christ to death is that Therefore it is the proper object of faith as justifying Answ 1. I distinguish of the term as justifying and answer as before No act of Faith effecteth our Justification and whole faith is the condition The being or Nature of no act is the formal or nearest reason of faiths Interest in Justification It justifieth not as this act nor as that 2. If only or some exclusive be not implyed in the conclusion I grant it still But if it be then both Major and Minor are false 1. The Major is false for it is not only the matter of our Justification that is the object of justifying faith To affirm this is but to beg the question we expect your proof 2. The Minor is false for besides the sufferings mentioned the very person of Christ and the active obedience of Christ and the Title to pardon given us in the Gospel c. apprehended by faith do justifie But the question is not what justifieth ex parts Christi but ex parte nostri Mr. W. Argument 7. That which the Gospel doth first present us with is the Object of faith as justifying But Christ is in the Gospel first presented as a Saviour therefore he is therein the object of faith as justifying Answ 1. Distinguishing as before of the as justifying I still grant the whole the exclusive and so the question is still wanting in the conclusion 2. But if he mean only then both Maior and Minor are false The Maior is false for that which the Gospel doth first present us with is but part of the object of justifying Faith For it presenteth us with the Articles to which we must Assent and to the Good which we must Accept by degrees and not all in a sentence or word The Minor is false because in order of nature the Description of Christs Person goeth first and of his Office afterward 3. The word Saviour comprehendeth both his Prophetical and Kingly Office by which he saveth us from sin and Hell as also his Resurrection Ascention Intercession c. And in this large sense I easily grant the Conclusion 4. If by a Saviour he mean only as his cause importeth a sacrifice for sin then as this is a strangely limited sense of the word Saviour so certainly the Incarnation Baptism Temptation Miracles Obedience of Christ are all exprest before this And if it were otherwise yet the consequence of the Maior is utterly groundless and vain Priority or Posteriority of any point delivered in the Gospel is a poor Argument to prove it the Object much less it alone of justifying faith Mr. W. Argument 8. That which the Lords Supper doth as a seal present to justifying faith that is the object of faith as justifying But the Lords Supper doth present us with Christ as dying Ego Answ 1. Still the question is wanting in the conclusion What a pack of Arguments are here 2. Do you believe in your conscience that Christ is presented and represented in the Supper only as dying Mr. W. Argument 9. If we have Redemption and remission of sins through faith in his blood then faith as justifying should only look upon that But we have redemption and remission of sins by his blood Col. 1. Answ Here 's one Argument that hath the question in the conclusion But 1. I deny the consequence of the Major as not by Christians to be endured The only followeth not Though we must be justified by his blood I have proved before that we are also justified by his Resurrection Obedience Intercession Judgement c. 2. Moreover the consequence is false on another account Justifying faith that is Faith the condition of Justification must look at more in Christ then that which purchaseth Redemption It justifieth not efficiently nor of its own nature but the Promise justifieth without faiths co-efficiency only it makes the condition sine qua non and this it may do by another Act of faith as well as that which apprehendeth the Ransom 3. The qua justificans I have spoke to Qua cannot here properly refer to the nature of the faith but to the Benefit And so faith qua justificans is
neither this act nor that act nor any act but qua justificans noteth only its respect to Justification rather then to Sanctification or other benefits As when I kindle a fire I thereby occasion both Light and Heat by putting to the fewel And if you speak of that act of mine qua calefaciens or qua illuminans this doth not distinguish of the nature of the act but of the Respect that the same Act hath to several effects or consequents Mr. W. Argument 10. If Christ only as crucified be the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption and Justification then Christ crucified is the only object of faith as Justifying But Ergo. Answ 1. The consequence of the Major is vain and an proved More then the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption is the object of justifying faith 2. The Minor is no small errour in the Judgement of most Protestants who maintain that Christs active Obedience and suffering life are also the Meritorious cause of our Justification and not only his Crucifixion Mr. W. Argument 11. If Christ as a servant did satisfie Gods Justice then he is so to be believed on to Justification But as a servant he did satisfie Gods Justice Ergo. Answ 1. I grant the conclusion Christ as a servant is to be believed in 2. But if only was again forgotten I further answer 1. I deny the consequence of the Major because Christ is to be believed on for Justification in other respects even in all essential to his Office and not only as satisfying I instanced before in Obeying Rising Judging from express Scripture 2. If the conclusion were granted it s against you and not for you For 1. Active obedience is as proper to a servant as suffering 2. Christ Taught the Church as a servant to his Father and is expresly called A Minister of the Circumcision So that these you yield the objects of this faith Mr. W. Argument 12. If none can call Christ Lord before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not an Accepting him as Lord. The Minor is true because none can call him Lord but by the Spirit and the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith after we believe Answ Any thing must serve 1. Both Major and Minor are such as are not to be swallowed in the lump If by Call you mean the call of the voyce then the consequence of the Major is vain and groundless For a man may believe in Christ with the heart as Lord and Saviour before he call him so with the mouth But if by Call you mean Believe then the Minor is false so confessed by all Protestants and Christians that ever I heard from of this point till now For they all confess that faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher and Head c. is the fides quae justificat or is of necessity to be present with the believing in his blood that a man may be justified Never did I hear till now that we first believe in Christ as dying only and so are justified before we believe in him as Lord and it seems before we are his Subjects or Disciples and that is before we are Christians 2. To your proof of the Minor I answer 1. It is no proof because the Text saith only that No man can call him Lord but by the Spirit but our question is of Believing and not of Calling which is Confessing 2. Many Expositors take it but for a common gift of the Spirit that 's there spoken of and do you think Justification must needs precede such common gifts 3. But if it had been Believe in stead of Call it s nothing for you For I easily grant that no man can believe in Christ as Lord but by the Spirit but I deny that this gift of the Spirit is never received till after that we believe and are justified And because it seems you judge that Believing in Christ to Justification is without the Spirit I pray answer first what we have said against the Arminians and Augustine against the Pelagians for the contrary Who would have thought that you had held such a point 4. How could you wink so hard as not to see that your Argument is as much against your self as me if you do but turn it thus If none can call Christ Jesus or the Saviour or believe in him to Justification before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not the accepting him as a Saviour The Minor is proved because none can call him Jesus or believe to Justification but by the Spirit This is as wise and strong an Argument as the other and all one See 1 Iob. 4.15 5.5 Believing in Christ as Saviour is as much of the Spirit is believing in him as Lord. 5. The Text makes against you 1 Cor 12.3 For there when Paul would denominate the true Christian faith or Confession he maketh Christ as Lord the Object Mr. W. Argument 13. If the promise of Salvation be the proper object of justifying faith then not the commands of Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo Answ 1. The conclusion is nothing to our Question which is not of Commands but of Christ as Lord. It may be you know no difference between the Relation and subsequent Duties between the Authority and the Command between subjection and obedience 2. The Minor is false If by proper you mean Only and if not the consequence is vain and null For the Person of Christ and his Office and the fruits of his Office even Pardon yea and Glory are the true Objects of justifying Faith Mr. W. Argument 14. If we are not justified both by Righteousness Inherent and Imputed then not by obeying Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo. Answ What 's this to the Question 1. About Justification by Righteousness Imputed or Inherent we spoke before 2. The conclusion never was acquainted with our Question Again it seems you cannot or will not distinguish between Relative subjection and actual obedience A man may become your servant and so have the Priviledges of a servant by covenant before he obey you A woman in Marriage may subject her self to you and have Interest in your estate even by that Marriage which promiseth subjection as well as Love without excluding the first from being any condition of her Interest and all this before she obey you 3. Your consequence would follow as much against your self as me For Believing in Christ as a Ransom is as truly a particular Inherent Righteousness as believing in him as Lord. 4. We are justified by Righteousness Inherent as a particular righteousness though not as a Universal as subordinate to Christs Righteousness that it may be ours though not in co-ordination with it Mr. W. Argument 15. If our accepting of Christ as Lord and Law-giver be not properly or formally faith nor properly to be called obedience then we are not formally justified by faith in him as Lord nor by our obedience to him as
Lord. But such an accepting of him is not properly or in the account of God or in it self Faith or obedience Ergo. The Minor I prove if purposes intentions or verbal professions to believe or obey are not properly faith obedience then such an accepting is not faith or obedience The Minor proved That which is or may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience Bu Ergo. Answ The Lord pardon the hardness of my heart that hath no more compassionate sense of the miseries of that poor Church and the dishonour of God which such Disputes as this proclaim by Arguments as fit to be answered by Tears as by words 1. A little before he was proving Argument 12. that none could call Christ Lord but by the Spirit and therefore this act was after Justification And now he proveth that its common to Hypocrites Reprobates 2. Here he delivereth me from all the trouble and fallacy that the distinction of fides quae Justificat and fides qua Justificat hath been guilty of For if the act that we dispute about be no faith at all then it is not the fides quae And yet he often is upon the Qua Justificans himself forgetting this 3. Had I but delivered such a Doctrine as this what should I have heard Justifying faith hath three Parts ASSENT CONSENT and AFFIANCE which also have several acts or parts according to the divers essential parts of the Object ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rest as all acts of the Intellect are to those of the Will CONSENT is the same which we here call ACCEPTING which is but the meer VOLITION denominated from its respect to the offer and thing offered This as it is in the will the commanding Faculty so is it as it were the Heart of Faith the first act being but to lead in this and AFFIANCE the third being commanded much by this or depending on it For as it is seated in the Affections so far it is distinct from this Velle or CONSENT Now when ever we name Faith by any one of these three acts as the Scripture doth from every one we include them all though to avoid tediousness we stand not to name all the parts when ever by one word we express the whole And all these Acts have whole Christ in all the essentials of his Person and office for their object Now that this faith in Christ as Lord or accepting him should be said and that by a Christian Divine and that in the Reformed Church to be no faith at all to say nothing of his denying it to be obedience is no matter of honour or comfort to us How oft doth the Scripture expresly mention faith in our Lord Jesus Christ Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord Col 2.6 with other equipollent terms But I will not offer to trouble any Christian Reader with Arguments for such a Truth 4. But yet the man would be thought to have Reason for what he saith and to his proof I further answer 1. Purposes Intentions and verbal Professions were none of the terms or things in question but Accepting or Believing in Christ as Lord Teacher c. These are but concomitants the two first and the last a consequent 2. Is it the Act Accepting that this Brother disputeth against or is it the Object Christ as Lord as being none of the faith by which we are justified If it be the former 1. What Agreement then hath this Argument with all the rest or with his question 2. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture that calleth Faith a Receiving of Christ and maketh it equipollent with Believing in his Name John 1.11.12 Col. 2.6 3. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the Protestant Faith that maketh Christ himself as Good to be the Object of faith to be embraced or chosen or accepted by the will as well as the word as True to be Assented to by the understanding But if it be the Object that he meaneth then what force or sense is there in his Argument from the terms Purposing Intending Confessing Let him name what Act he please so it respect this Object and if it be an Act of faith indeed it s all one as to our present Controversie If he take Consent willing or Accepting of Christ to be no act of Faith let him name any other that he will own for I would quarrel as little as may be about words or impertinent things and let that be it 4. And how could he choose but see that his Argument is as much against Accepting Christ as Priest as against Accepting him as Lord to Justification No doubt but a man that had the common Reason to write but such a book as this must needs see this if he regard what he said And therefore I must take it for granted that his Argument is against both alike even to prove that Accepting of Christ as Lord or as Saviour is no faith or obedience at all But the Reader will hardly believe till he weigheth it that a waking man would reason thus upon such a Question as this in hand 5. Consenting that Christ shall be my Lord and Teacher and Head doth imply a consent and so a Purpose of future obeying learning and receiving from him And so consenting that Christ shall be my Righteousness Intercessor and Justifier doth imply a Purpose of Trusting in him for the future And yet this consent in both cases is Justifying faith 6. And its dolefull Doctrine were he a true Prophet to all Gods Church that Purposes and Intentions to believe and obey are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates For though there are superficial uneffectual purposes and Intentions in them as there is an uneffectual faith in them yet if no Purposes and Intentions will prove men Saints then nothing in this world will prove them Saints For the Evidences of Grace are more certain to him that hath them in the Heart then in the outward Actions And in the Heart the very new Creature lyeth much in these two Desires themselves will prove true Grace Much more when they rise to setled Purposes Why else did Barnabas exhort the young beginners that with purpose of Heart they should cleave unto the Lord as intimating that their stability lay in this And Intentions are the very Heart of the New man For Intention is that act that is exercised about the End which is God himself Intendere finem is no more then Velle vel Amare Deum It is the Love of God above all And if this be common to Hypocrites and Reprobates what a case are we in then I hope I have given you a sufficient account of the Impertinency and vanity of Mr. Warners fifteen Arguments To which he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians Arminians and I know not who to assure you that we his new Adversaries do joyn with that company and plead their cause And he that
will believe him shall no further be disturbed by me in his belief I doubt I have wearied the Reader already and therefore I shall only add a few words about a few more of the most considerable passages in his Book Some other of Mr. Warners passages of most importance considered Pag. 385. MR. W. saith It 's worth the observing how to evade the Distinction of the Acts of faith he saith that faith is one act in a moral sense as Taking a man to be my Prince Teacher Physitian c. and not in a physical sence for so it is many acts c. And he confuteth me thus Here Reader see the wit or forgetfulness of the man who to maintain his own ground doth often consider faith as Physically seated in the understanding and will but when we assault him will not allow us any Physical but a moral Acception of it Answer A most gross untruth and that 's an Arguing that Faith needeth not Your forgery is not only without ground and contrary to my plain and frequent words but contrary to the express words that you draw your Observation from I say faith Physically taken is many acts but morally taken it is one work Hence you call out to the Reader to observe that I will not allow you any Physical but a Moral Acception of it Is it fit to Dispute with such dealing as this Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Physical Act except them of late that take it to be but a Passion and a Nominal action Surely all know that it is an Act in order of Nature before it is a moral act Actus moralis is first actus Physicus Though Moraliter actus i. e. actus Reputativus may be but a non-acting Physically He that wilfully famisheth his own child doth kill him morally or reputatively and so is moraliter agens that is Reputative But he that cherisheth him is an Agent natural and moral that is Ethical or Vertuous I wonder what made you think me of such an opinion that I have so much wrote against He next saith that Though by one moral act we receive divers benefits yet we receive them to divers purposes Answer True But many such passages of yours are to no purpose and such is this impertinent to the business Page 391. He comes to my Distinction where I say that ex parte Christi he satisfieth Justice as a Ransom and Teacheth us as our Master and Ruleth us as our King yet ex parte nostri it is but one and the same entire faith that is the condition of our Title to his several benefits From hence he ingeniously gathereth that I say That faith hath but one respect to those benefits and is not diversified by several acts and deny the necessity of these distinct acts in reference to the several benefits of Christ Whereas I only maintained that though the acts be Physically distinct yet they are not distinct conditions of our Interest in the benefits but the same entire faith is the one condition of them all Hereupon he learnedly addresseth himself to prove that faith hath several acts And he that thinketh it worth his time to transcribe and confute his Arguments let him do it for I do not Page 401. He thinks We need not dispute whether the Reception of Christ by faith be moral or Physical however it is not an improper but proper reception Answ 1. It seems then we need not dispute whether Christs body be every where and whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat 2. And whereas Recipere in its first and proper signification was wont to be pati now it is agere And whereas consent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically now it is becoma a proper Reception Page 303.304 Reasoning against me he saith The nearest formal Reason of a Believers Interest is not Gods making it a condition which is the remote reason thereof but a Believers fulfilling the condition c. Answ 1. Here he changeth the question from What is the nearest reason of saiths Interest to What is the nearest reason of the Believers Interest To the first I say Its being made the condition of the Promise To the second I say The Promise or grant it self 2. He findeth a learned Confutation for me viz. That it is not Gods making but the fulfilling the condition that is the formal Reason Answ Performance that is Believing maketh faith to be faith and exist but the Promise makes that the condition I spoke de esse and he de existere And yet I usually say that The nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification iâ— as it is the condition of the Promises fulfilled that I might joyn both 3. Note that in this his Assertion he granteth me the sum of all that I desire For if this be true then it is not the Nature or the Instrumentality of faith that is the nearest reason as is usually said Page 200. He doth as solemnly call his Adversarie ad partes as if he were in good sadness to tell him what is the causality of works is Justification And falling to his enumeration he tells us that The particle A or Ab notes the peculiar causality of the efficient the particle Ex notes the material cause the particle Pâ—r or By the formal cause the particle Propter the final cause Answ I must erave pardon of the Reader while I suppose all this to be currant that I may answer ad hominâ—m And then 1. It seems faith is not the efficient cause and therefore not the Instrumental cause For A or ab is not affixed to it in this business 2. It seems then that faith is the formal cause of Justification because we are said to be Justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.22 25 30 passim By Faith So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Instrumental efficient cause 3. Hence it seems also that faith even the same faith is the material cause too For most certainly we are said to be justified ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.26 30. Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16 3.8 7 5 9 22 24. 5.5 Jam. 2.24 Whether ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do indeed express an Instrumental efficient I leave to consideration But sure I am it fitly expresseth the Interest of a condition And if Mr. W. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Righteousness it must be but of our subordinate particular Evangelical righteousness which consisteth in fulfilling the condition of Justification Chap. 5. pag. 29.30 31. He spends a Chapter to open to us the meaning of fides qua Justificat And prosesseth that it is the Carad controversia yea it was the remembrance of this distinction and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Discourse and that it is the basis of his
For it fell out that I first saw your Book without the Epistle and Preface 2. Because I thought it fittest to follow the Method that my Subject and the Readers â—â—dification did require 3. Yet did I once purpose to have answered all that was of moment in your Book against the Truth but upon trial I found your Reasons so inconsiderable that weariness interrupted me and put an end to my Reply and withal I grew confident that my labour would be to little purpose For I dare venture any Judicious Divine upon your Book without the help of a Reply And for the rest it is not replying that will serve turn but either prejudice will hold them to the side that they have taken or else they will think him in the right that hath the last word when they have read mine they will think that I am in the right and when they have again read yours they will think that you carry the cause and when they read my Reply again they will say you were mistaken but usually they will go with the party that is in greatest credit or hath most interest in them or advantage on them But yet I think you will find that none of your strength against me is neglected For I can truly say that when I think not meet to Answer all that a man hath said I never pass by that which I take to be his strength but purposely call out that and leave that which I think is so grosly weak as to need no answer So much of your ten Demands or Laws as I apprehended necessary I have here answered supposing what I had said of the same points in my first Disputation which I saw no Reason too often to Repeat I am none of those that blame you for too much of the Metaphysicks but rather mervail that you feared not lest your Metaphysical Reader will wrong you by mis-applying your cited Schegkius contrary to your better opinion of your self and take both your Schegkius and your Scaliger for Prophets that could speak as if they had read your Book and been acquainted with your arguings But it seems you are not the first of that way By your Arguments in your Preface I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause to prove that there are divers acts of Faith whereas I am so far from denying it that I am ready to demonstrate that even the faith by which we are Justified is liker to have twenty acts then one only but many certainly it hath Your first Argument is from the different objects because the Objects specifie the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute But 1. This is no proof that one act only is it that we are justified by 2. Where you add that Justifying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter you beg the Question and assert no light mistake But where you add in its act of Justifying you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error which leadeth you to the rest by naked affirmations Faith hath properly no justifying act Justificare est efficere Faith doth not effect our Justification we are justified by faith indeed but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect but Accept when offered If you â—â—nâ— see so plain a Truth in its Evidence yet observe by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals course that its a passive instrumentality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively you must mean only effective non formaliter a denying subjection to him as Lord. You err so great but so rare an error that I suppose it needless to confute it All Christians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed that Believing in Christ as Prophet and King is a real part of faith and that unbelief or rejecting him as Prophet and King is a real part of unbelief Your second Argument is from the different subjects where you give us two such palpable Fictions that its a wonder you can make your self believe them much more that you should lay so great a stress on such absurdities The first is that the Act of Faith is in several faculties and you elswhere give us to understand that it is one Physical Act that you mean And do you think in good sadness that one single Physical act can be the act of both the faculties The second is that the fear love and obedience to Christ as King is but in the Will But 1. That Readers do you expect that will take an Assertion of Fear-Love and Obedience in stead of an assertion concerning Faith Were you not comparing faith in Christ as King with faith in Christ as Priest only And why speak you not of faith in one part of your comparison as well as in the other Your conclusion now is nothing to the Question 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Christ as King is not in both faculties as well as Faith in Christ as Priest or sacrifice did you think that any man of ordinary understanding would ever believe you without any proof or that ever such a thing can be proved Your third Argument is Because they are in a different time exerted the one that is Faith as Justifying being precedaneous to the other and to other Graces Answ Wonderfull Is that man justified that believeth not in Christ as the King and Prophet of the Church Do you believe this your self why then an Infidel is justified by Faith The ' Belief in Christ as a Sacrifice or Priest only is not the Christian faith it is not faith in Christ properly because it is not faith in Christ as Christ For Christ as Priest only is not Christ A Heart only is not Corpus humanum A Body only is not a Man where there are three essential parts one of them is not the Thing without the rest The name Jesus Christ signifieth the office as well as the person It is essential to that Office that he be Prophet and King And hereby you shew that you do not only distinguish but divide For where there is a distance of time between the Acts there is a division Do you think that we are Christs enemies or followers of them unless we will believe you that a man is Justified by Believing in Christ only as a Priest or Ransom or in his Righteousness before ever be believe in him as King and Lord and so as Teacher c. If I had said that you are Christs enemy for such Doctrine
which think you had had the fairer pretence for his censure But I am far from saying so or thinking it I know that the Assent to the essential Articles of Christianity containeth many Acts and that our Consent and Affiance are many Physical Acts as the parts of Christs Office are many Objects But yet I do not think but am certain that all these physical Acts concur to make up that Moral Aâ— which is called Christian or saving or Justifying Faith and that he that believeth not in Christ as to all that is essential to Christ is no Christian And a man is not justified by Faith before he is a Christian And truly Sir men that are loth to flie from the Light and that love the Truth and diligently seek it as heartily if not as happily as you must yet needs tell you that if you produce your Mormolucks an hundred times and cant over and over a Papist a Socinian an Arminian and an Arminian a Socinian and a Papist their understandings will never the more be perswaded to embrace your Delusions though you should say that the Kingdom of God doth consist in them Your fourth Argument is that There is a difference in Nature Efficacy Energy and Operation therefore the Acts are not the same Answ 1. I maintained the conclusion that faith hath different Acts before ever I heard of your name and have no reason now to denie it 2. The difference of Nature I grant you between many Acts of faith but what you mean by the Efficacy Energy and Operation be that knows can tell for I cannot But still desire you to know that I deny faith to have any efficient operation in justifying us or that it is an efficient cause of our Justification especially it s no Physical efficient you add a strange proof of your Assertion viz. For faith as Justifying makes a mystical Union and relative change on the person but faith as working and sanctifying produceth a moral union with Christ c. Answ 1. Faith as justifying doth only Justifie and produce no Vâ—ion the same faith as uniting is the means of Vnion 2. The question is of Faith in Christ as Priest and faith in Christ as Prophet and King also And you talk of faith as justifying and as working and sanctifying A small alteration 3. What Mystical Relative Union is that which is not a Moral Union 4. Faith in Christ as Christ and not as a Ransom only is the means of our Justification And you give us nothing like a proof of the contrary restriction In the same Preface you tell the world of as threefold Artifice that we use the first is to set up a second Justification Ans Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean If the name 1. cite the words where we use that Name 2. If it answer the subject you may bear with the name If it be the Thing then tell us what Religion that it that denyeth 1. a Justification by sentence at Judgement 2. Gods continual justifying us to the Death 3. And his particular pardoning or justifying us from the guilt of renewed particular sins 4. And that faith is not only in the first act but through all our lives the means of our Justification Or justifying faith is more then one instantaneous Act or a man ceaseth not to have justifying faith after the first Act or moment Tell us who those be and what Religion they are of that deny all these that Christians may be acquainted with them if they be worthy their acquaintance Our second Artifice is to require Works only as Gospel-Conditions Answ Would you have us say more of them or less If less I have said enough of it in the second Disputation Our third Artifice is To include works in the Definition of Justifying faith making it a receiving of Christ as Saviour Lord and Law-giver to Justification as also confounding our consummate Salvation or Glorification with our Justification Ans Gross untruths contrary to large and plaine expressions of my mind in several Volumes if you mean me as you know I have reason to judge 1. I ever took works to be a fruit of faith and no part of it unless you take the word Faith improperly and laxely unless by Works you mean Acts And you take faith for such a work your self that is an Act. 2. I expresly distiguished what you say I confound Consummate Sanctification or Glorification and consummate Justification But yet as I do in the Definition include Consent to Christs Lordship though not Obedience that 's only implyed to be a necessary consequent so I still say that much of your Justitication is yet to come And if your Religion teach you to say that you will be beholding to Christ for no more Justification so doth not mine And whereas you cite some that say that all our sins are pardoned in our first believing as if I had questioned any such thing I must tell you that I easily grant it that every sin is then forgiven and so far as that Justification is perfect but what have you yet said to prove 1. That we are never justified be faith but in that one instant 2. That we need no particular Justification from particular sins that after shall be committed 3. Nor no sentential Justification at Judgement which Mr. Burgess will tell you is the chief You and others use to say that that at Judgement is but Declarative But 1. It is no common Declaration but a Declaration by the Judge 2. And the Sentence doth more then meerely declare for it doth finally decide acquit and adjudge to Glory 3. And methinks this Declarative should be no term of Diminution but of Aggravation with those that still use to say that Justification is a judicialâ— Term. Alas That these matters among the friends of Christ and Truth should need so many words Some more I had to say to you but you may find it in the Preface to these Disputations I only add that if indeed it be true which you write to that Honourable person to whom you dedicate your Labors viz. That the Subject of your Discourse is so excellent and necessary to be known and that He who is Ignorant of the Object and Office of Faith doth neither know what he believeth nor how he is justified I should think it is high time that you call your Vnderstanding once more to an account and review the Fabrick that you have built on a qua justificans not understood or upon a specificative quatenus where there is no such thing And if you think me unfit to be hearkned to in this as being one of the men of perverse minds that there you mention its more worthy your industry to seek the advice of the learned Oxford Divines herein then that they should be sought to approve and midwife such a Book into the world and its likely that their Charity will provoke them to be serviceable to you in this though I
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.
they judge us so For I presuppose that that they know us to be so made by some Act before and therefore they judge us to be as we are And if they may know that we are Believers and know that the New Law justifieth all such then they may judge us to be justified without any sentence in Heaven even as they know when a sinner is converted and rejoice in it which doubtless they may know without a sentence in Heaven pronouncing us converted and Gods making them Instruments in conferring his Mercies may make them know You say that Constitutive Justification different from Declarative by sentence I do not find expressed under the term Justification it would be considered whether any other Act beside the sentence doth make a man just but giving of faith Answer These two things I shall prove to convince you because this is of some moment 1. That some Act there must be to constitute us just before or besides the sentence 2. That neither the sentence nor the giving of Faith doth first and properly constitute us Just 1. If we be not just before we are judged as just then Gods Judgement should not be according to Truth But Gods Judgment is according to Truth therefore we are just before we are so judged 2. He that hath Christ and the Benefits of his satisfactory Righteousness given him by the New Law Covenant Testament or Grant of Christ is hereby constituted righteous But every Believer hath Christ and the said benefits Given him in and by the Law or Covenant therefore he is thereby made or constituted Righteous And here by the way take notice that the New Law or Covenant hath two Offices the one to Bestow Right to the Benefit and hereby it makes Righteous The other to Declare and manifest openly and to be the Rule of publique Judgement and so it doth both actione morali proclaim believers righteous and Virtually sentence them so And therefore in Rom. 10.5 it is called the Righteousness which is of the Law And if the Old Law had a power of making Righteous if man could have performed the condition so also hath the New 2. And that the sentence doth not constitute us Just needs no proof It is the work of a Judge by sentence to clear the Guiltless and not to make them Guiltless Pardon indeed may do somewhat to it but that is not the action of a Judge as a Judge but as you before distinguished of a Rector in case of transgressing Lawes A Judge pronounceth men to be what they first are according to Law and not makes them to be righteous who are not He that saith to the wicked thou art Righteous Nations shall curse him people shall bhor him Pro. 24.24 He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the Just even they both are abomination to the Lord Prov. 17.15 If this were not so then we must believe that no man is justified before the day of particular or general Judgement till you have proved that God sentenceth at a Court of Angels And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous that is according to the Law of works effective I think you confess If I thought you did not it were very easily proved Faith being but the condition of our universal righteousness which the old Law requireth in its stead cannot be that Righteousness it self and some other efficient there must be of our Justification here Next you say Notwithstanding Christs Death and the Conditional Covenant afore faith a person is only justifyable Conditionalis nihil ponit esse Answ All this is very true but not any thing against me I like well what you say of Christs death because it is as Aquinas and our Davenant Vsher c. say but Causa universalis vel Remedium omnibus applicabile It is to prepare for and merit not directly to effect our Justification whatsoever the Antinomians dream But the Covenant or Testament is the very efficient Instrumental cause of Justification and its Action is Gods Action Yet its true that Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse that is till the condition be performed but then it becometh of equal force to an Absolute Gift and doth ponere in esse even the same Instrument doth it whose Action till then was by the Authors will suspended YOu next pass to another Point about Thes 59. whether Justification be a continued Act. And you say that being a Transient Act it cannot be well called a continued Act which imports a successive motion between the Terminus a quo and ad quem whereas this Act whether by sentence or Covenant is not such a motion c. Answ 1. All this may be true of a proper natural Action but you know that it is only a moral Action which I affirm to be continued and of this you know your Rule de motu holds not except you take Motus largely and improperly As passive Justification or the effect of the Justifying Act is but a Relation which is the weakest of Entities so doth it per nudam resultantiam arise which is by the weakest of Causalities The Act of God giving out and enacting this Law or Covenant at first was indeed a proper transient Act and is ceased but the moral Action of the Law thus enacted is continual The Law of the land which condemneth Delinquents and justifieth the obedient doth both by a continued moral Act. The Lease of your House or Lands gives you Title thereto by a continued moral Act. So that this which I assert is not Actus repetitus vel renovatus You add that You incline to think that there is but one Justification of a Person in this life though frequent Remission of sin Answ In that you judge as most of the Orthodox do And I have said nothing to the contrary I think also that as Scripture useth the phrase of oft-forgiving but seldom of oft-justifying so it is safest to speak as Scripture doth Yet as to the thing me thinks that as Remission and Justification do but respectively or very narrowly differ so in this case one may as truly be said to be repeated as the other that is As there is an universal Remission of all sin past upon our first true Believing which universal Remission is never iterated but continued so is there an Universal Justification of the person at the same time by which he is made just and in Law so esteemed pronounced or judged by being acquit from the condemning Power of the Law which for his sins past only was before in force against him And so if you look to such a Remission or Justification as wholly changeth the state of the person making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardoned and fully under guilt of all former sins or making him justified who was before unjustified and condemned in Law neither of these I think are iterated But then as you confess a frequently renewed pardon for following sins so I know no
principally then the Act. And as it is fitter to say that we are Justified by Christs blood then that we are Justified by his Kingly Power therefore the Apostle rather speaks of faith in his blood as neerliest relating to the Object Yet as he excludes not Christs obedience for by his obedience many are made Righteous nor faith in his obedience and in his whole humiliation as well as his blood and in his Resurrection and Intercession and Exaltation so not in his Kingly Office Look back on the former Example to make this plain A poor condemned woman is delivered and Dignified by marrying a Prince that hath redeemed her on that condition When she speaks of her Deliverance she will say I am delivered by the Bounty Goodness or Redemption of my Prince and so by marrying him that in mercy Redeemed me rather then I am delivered by marrying a Prince to Rule me Because in the former she more fitly fully expresseth more of the cause of her Deliverance Much less will she think it a fit speech to say I am delivered by marrying an Avenger of his enemies a Condemner a Punisher c. as you are pleased to speak in this our case And yet who doubts but her marrying or taking him for her Husband hereafter to Rule her as well as presently to Deliver her is the very true Condition on her part of her Deliverance Yea and if you speak not only of her Deliverance but of her Dignity being enriched Honoured and made a Queen it is the fittest phrase to say it was by her marrying a Prince And so if you speak not only of Pardon and Justification which import our Deliverance in statum quo prius but also of our Adoption to be sons and Kings and Heirs with Christ it is no unfit phrase to say This is by our marrying King Jesus or by receiving Christ as the King by Redemption All the Benefits which we Receive from Christ which follow Union such as are Pardon Justification and Adoption do flow from our Union with himself which precedes them This Union is by Faith We are united to him as to a Head Husband and Prince and not only as a Justifier therefore from him received as a Head Husband and Prince do these Benefits of Justification and Adoption flow To your seventh Objection I answer by denying the latter part of your Antecedent that Scripture nowhere makes Christs Dominion you say but Christum Dominum you should say the Object of justifying Faith I never thought that Christs Dominion nor yet his Redemption was the proper Object of the chiefest act of Justifying Faith But Christ himself as Lord and as Redeemer is I prove it 1. Christ is the proper Object of justifying Faith as I shall anon prove But the name Christ signifieth as directly and fully his Kingly Office as his Justifying If you include not his being King you Receive him not as Christ 2. To Receive him as Redeemer is to Receive him as King For his very Redeeming was a Purchasing them into his own hands Joh. 13.3 Matth. 28.18 Joh. 17.2 3.35 Luke 10.22 Ephes 1.20 21. Joh. 5.26 27. Rom. 14.9 c. though not only so 3. Psalm 2. Kiss the Son left he be angry c. Kissing or submitting to and Receiving the Son as King for so the whole Psalm expounds it is the condition of escaping wrath therefore of Pardon for Poena Venia sunt aduersa therefore of our Justification 4. Matth. 11.27 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden Guilt is the great load But under what Notion will Christ be come to Take my yoke and burthen c. Learn of me c. and ye shall find rest to your souls Rest from what from that they were burdened with and that was Guilt among other things and to remove the burden of the Guilt of sin or curse of the Law is to Pardon and Justifie I hope you will not say that the only Burden that Christ offers here to ease them of was the pharises rigorous Interpretation of the Law as I was told you expound it 5. Luke 19.27 These mine enemies that would not I should Reign over them c. If Rejecting Christ as King be the condemning sin according to the tenor of the New Law then Accepting him as King is part of the condition of Justification The Consequence is plain because the said Rejection condemneth as it is the non-performance of that condition which must be performed to the avoiding of condemnation More Scriptures might be brought but the first Argument alone is suficient if there were no more To your eighth Objection I answer The Object of justifying Faith is Christ himself principally and the word as both Revealing Offering him Promising Threatning but it is not Christ commanding first but Christ as King to Command This is answered in the former To your ninth Objection I answer when I say that Receiving Christ as Lord is one part of Justifying Faith I speak not of the Act morally as if it had two parts where it is entire It is but one moral Act to Accept of whole Christ if you speak simply of Accepting as distinct from preceding Assent and subsequent Affiance But I call it part in reference to the Object whence you say ariseth the Difference Though Christs Office of Mediator be but one yet from the works of that office we look on his Governing and Pardoning or Justifying as distinct parts and thence I call this act of faith a part For that you say of obedience following faith and as an effect and sign I easily yield it But where you say that Trust is the Genus where the Object is an incomplex term I answer if you take faith as it is justifying or the condition of our Justification and not in the strictest sense so it hath more Acts then one about the incomplex term And Affiance is the Genus of one only To accept an offered Saviour is an Act precedent in order of Nature before any other act of the Will that is the elicite Acts are before the Imperate and Trust is not the Genus of this Besides Trust is no one act but many and that of both faculties and a Negation of several acts besides A certain Argument that it is no one single Act that justifieth even in their Judgement that say Affiance is the justifying Act when the Scripture speaks of faith as Affiance it includes Acceptance or consent which go before Affiance in order of nature Yea some of our most Learned Accurate Divines when they say Affiance is the justifying faith do either by Affiance mean only that elicite act of the Will which I call Acceptance Consent or Election or else rather they mean several acts whereof this is one So Amesius Medul l. 1. cap. 3. § 13. Fides i st a qua credimus non tantum Deum aut Deo sed in Deum est vera ac propia fiducia non qua hac
neither a continued Act nor renewed or repeated neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed are any conditions of our Justification in this Life This may seem a heavy charge but it is a plain Truth For that Justification which we receive upon our first believing hath only that first Act of faith for its condition or as others speak its Instrumental cause We are not justified to day by that act of Faith which we shall perform to Morrow or a Twelvemonth hence so that according to your opinion and all that go that way it is only one the first Act of Faith which justifies and all the following Acts through our whole life do no more to our Justification then the works of the Law do I would many other Divines that go your way for it is common as to the dispatching of Justification by one Act would think of this foul absurdity You may add this also to what is said before against your opinion herein Where then is the Old Doctrine of the just living by faith as to Justification I may bear with these men or at least need not wonder for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Justification as continued when they will not admit faith it self Who speaks more against faith they or I When I admit as necessary that first act and maintain the necessity of repeated acts to our continued Justification and they exclude all save one Instantaneous act 2. And what reason can any man give why Repentance should be admitted as a condition of our first Justification and yet be no condition of the continuance of it or what proof is there from Scripture for this I shall prove that the continuance of our Justification hath more to its condition then the beginning though learned men I know gain-say it but surely less it cannot have 4. But why do you say only of Repentance that it is the condition of Remision and of forgiving others that it is the condition of entring into life Have you not Christs express words that forgiving others is a condition of our Remission if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will forgive you but if you forgive not men c. Nay is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveness I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorisms Wash you make you clean put away the evil of your doings c. then if your sins be as crimson c. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy And I would have it considered if Remission and Justification be either the same or so neer as all Divines make them whether it be possible that forgiving others and Reformat on or new Obedience should be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Act and not of Justification Doubtless the general Justification must be continued as well as the general pardon and a particular Justification I think after particular sins is needfull as well as particular pardon or if the name should be thought improper the thing cannot be denyed Judicious Ball saith as much as I yet men were not so angry with him Treat of Covenant pag. 20.21 A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final Absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and Eternal bliss And pag. 21. This walking in the light as he is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Christs Righteousness or actual participants of his propitiation which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification taken for Remission of sins or actual approbation with God And pag. 73. Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that faith which justifieth So he 5. How will you ever prove that our Entering into Life and our continued remission or Justification have not the same conditions that those Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other Indeed the men that are for Faiths Instrumentality say somewhat to it but what you can say I know not And for them if they could prove Faith Instrumental in justifying co nomine because it receives Christ by whom we are justified they would also prove it the Instrument of Glorifying because it Receives Christ by and for whom we are saved and Glorified And so if the Instrumentality of Faith must exclude obedience from justifying us it must also exclude it from Glorifying us And I marvel that they are so loose and easie in admitting obedience into the work of saving and yet not of continuing or consummating Justification when the Apostle saith By Grace ye are saved by Faith and so excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Justification in particular 6. But lastly I take what you grant me in this Section and profess that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cause that I stand upon For as you grant 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant 2. That Repentance also is the condition of Remission which is near the same with Justification 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification which hath the same conditions with final and continued Justification 4. So you seem to yield all this as to our full justification at Judgement For you purposely limit the conditionality of meer faith to our Justification in this Life But if you yield all that I desire as you do if I understand you as to the last justification at Judgement then we are not much differing in this business For I take as Mr. Burges doth Lect. of Justification 29 our compleatest and most perfect Justification to be that at Judgement Yea and that it is so eminent and considerable here that I think all other Justification is so called chiefly as referring to that And me thinks above all men you should say so too who make Justification to lie only in sententiâ— judicis and not in sententia Legis And so all that go your way as many that I meet with do If then we are justified at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement by obedience as the secondary part of the condition of the Covenant which you seem to yield 1. We are agreed in the main 2. I cannot yet believe that our Justification at that Bar hath one condition and our Justification in Law or in this Life as continued another He that dyeth justified was so justified in the hour of dying on the same conditions as he must be at Judgement For 1. There are no conditions to be performed after death 2. Sententia Legis sententia judicis do justifie on the same terms Add to all
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
joyned with Assent as Heat in the Sun with Light though they are not the same But then the second sort of Affiance followeth Assent and hath another act of the Will interceding which is Consent or acceptance of the Benefit offered which also is closely conjunct with the first act of the Will And then followeth last of all affiance in Christ for the performance of the undertaken acts And these latter are also many particular Physical acts as the objects in specie specialissima are many And yet all these make but one object in a moral sense and so but one act and are done in a few moments of time of which after Would it not be too tedious I should stay to cite several Texts to prove that never a one of all these acts is excluded as works by Paul But of divers of them it s before proved from Rom. 3. and 4. and of more in Heb. 11. and in Gal. 3.1 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 18 20 21 22. There are at least these Objects of Justifying faith expressed 1. Christs Person 2. that he was seed promised 3. That he was crucified 4. That this was for our sins 5. That he was made a curse for us in this his death 6. That hereby he Redeemed us from the curse 7. That he is the Mediator 8. God as the Party with whom he is Mediator 9. God as Believed in his Promise 10. God as Justifier 11. The Gospel preached and he Promise made 12. Blessedness by Christ 13. The confirmed Covenant 14. The Inheritance 15. Righteousness 16. Adoption 17. That Belief is the means and believers the subjects of these benefits All these objects of Faith you will find in the Text. Argument 2. Ex natura rei If other acts of faith in Christ are no more works then that one whatsoever it be which you will say Paul opposeth to works then Paul doth not call them works or number them with works But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Doubtless the Scripture calls them as they are and therefore if they are not works it calls them not works And for the Antecedent 1. If by works you mean the Keeping of the first Covenant by sinless obedience so neither the one or the other are works 2. If you mean the keeping of Moses Law so neither of them are works 3. If you mean the performance of an act of obedience to any Precept of God so the several acts are works but justifie not as acts of obedience to the command that 's but their matter but as the condition of the Promise 4. If you mean that they are Acts of the soul of man so every act of Faith is a work though it justifie not as such so that here is no difference to be found E. g. If you make the Believing in Christ as Dying though you take in both assent and affiance to be the only Justifying act what reason can you give why our Believing in Christ incarnate in Christ obeying the Law in Christ rising again and Glorified and Interceding in Christ actually now giving out the pardon of sin and Adoption c. should be called works any more then our Believing in Christ as crucified No reason at all nor any Scripture can be brought for it Yea what reason have you that our Believing in Christ as the Physitian of our souls to cure us of our sins and cleanse our hearts and sanctifie our Natures and in Christ as the Teacher and Guide of our souls to life eternal should be called works any more then the other Or that believing in Christs blood for everlasting Life and happiness should be any more called works then believing in his blood for Justification Yea that Believing in him as the King and Head and Captain of his Church to subdue their enemies and by his Government conduct them to perseverance and to Glory should any more be called works then believing on him as crucified in order to forgiveness Argument 3. All acts Essential to faith in Christ as Christ are opposed to works by Paul in the point of Justification and are not the works opposed to Faith But many acts are essential to faith in Christ as Christ therefore they are many acts that are opposed to works and no one of those acts is the works excluded The Major is proved thus If faith in Christ as such be it that Paul opposeth to works then every essential part of it is by Paul opposed to works for it is not faith in Christ if it want any essential part But the Antecedent is true Ergo. The Minor I have proved in the first Disputation Though sometime it is said to be by faith in his blood that we have remission of sin and sometime that we are justified if we believe in him that raised Christ from the dead c. Yet most frequently it is said to be by faith in Christ by believing in the Lord Jesus receiving Christ Jesus the Lord c. Belive in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved was the Gospel preached to the Jaylor Acts 16. But this is sufficiently proved already That many acts are essential to faith in Christ as such is also proved and particularly that believing in him as our Teacher Lord and as Rising Interceding and Justifying by sentence and Gift as well as believing in him as dying for our Justification As Christ is not Christ as to his Office and work without these Essentials so faith is not the Christian faith without these acts But here observe that though I say these acts of faith are not the works which Paul excludeth I speak of them as they are and not as they are misunderstood For if any man should imagine that Believing in Christ is a Legal Meritorious work and that can justifie him of or for it self I will not deny but he may so make another thing of faith and so bring it among excluded works if it be possible for him to believe contradictories But then this is as true of one act of Faith as another If a man imagine that it s thus Meritorious to Believe in Christ as purchasing him Justification it is as much the excluded works as to think it Meritorious to Believe in him as our Teacher or King and Judge that will lead us to final Absolution and actually justifie us by his Sentence at that Judgement Argument 4. Those acts of Faith that are necessary to Justification are none of the works that Paul excludeth from Justification unless changed by misunderstanding as aforesaid But other acts of faith as well as one are necessary to Justification Ergo. The Minor which only is worthy the labour of a proof 1. is proved before and in the first Disputation 2. And it is confessed by my Opponents that say Faith in Christ as Teacher King c. is the fides quae Justificat and the condition of Justification as Repentance also is though it be not the Instrumental
cause as they think some other Act is Paul doth not exclude that which he makes necessary Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace is none of the works that Paul sets faith against But other acts of faith in Christ do not make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one act which you will choose E. g. Believing in Christ as King and Teacher any more then believing in him as a Ransom therefore they are not the works that Pauls sets faith against The Major is proved from the Description of the excluded works Rom. 4.4 The Minor is evident Argument 6. All acts of Faith in Christ as our Justifier are such as are opposed to works by Paul and are none of the works which faith is opposed to But they are more then one or two that are Acts of faith in Christ as Justifier Ergo. The Major I think will be granted the Minor is plain For 1. Christ justifieth us meritoriously as a Sacrifice 2. And as Obeying and fulfilling the Law 3. As the complement of his satisfaction and the entrance upon his following execution his Resurrection justifieth us 4. As the Heavenly Priest at Gods right hand he justifieth us by his Intercession 5 As King and Head he justifieth us by his Covenant or Law of Grace 6. As King and Judge he justifieth us by sentence 7. As Prophet he teacheth us the Doctrine of Justification and how to attain to Justification by sentence So that at least none of these are the excluded works Argum. 7. If the whole Essence of Christian faith be opposed to works and so be none of the opposed works in the matter of Salvation then it s so also in the matter of Justification But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Minor is confessed by my Opponents The consequence of the Major I prove 1. Because Salvation is as free as Justification and no more of works which Paul excludeth 2. Salvation comprehendeth Justification and Glorification hath the same conditions as final Justification at Judgement it being part of Justification to adjudge that Glory 3. The express Scripture excludes works as much from Salvation as from Justification Eph. 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life Many such places are obvious to any diligent Reader For the Minor also read 1 Cor. 15.1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Argum. 8. If no man can name any one Act of faith that is opposed to all the rest as works or opposed to works when the rest are not then no such thing it to be asserted But no man can name the Act that is thus opposed alone to works 1. It is not yet done that I know of We cannot get them to tell us what Act it is 2. And if they do others will make as good a claim to the Prerogative Argum. 9. They that oppose us and affirm the Question do feign God to have a strange partiality to one Act of faith above all the rest without any reason or aptitude in that act to be so exalted But this is not to be feigned and proved it cannot be that God should annex our Justification to the Belief in Christ as a sacrifice only and to oppose this to belief in him as Rising Interceding Teaching Promising or Judging is a fiction contrary to Scripture Examine any Text you please and see whether it will run well with such an Exposition Rom. 4.4 5. Now to him that worketh i. e. Believeth in Christ as Teacher Judge Intercessor is the reward not reckoned of Grace but of Debt But to him that worketh not that is believeth not on Christ as King and Teacher c. but Believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly an act of his Kingly office c. Doth this run well I will not trouble you with so unsavoury a Paraphrase upon the like Scriptures you may try at pleasure on Rom. 3. 4. and Gal. 3. Eph. 2. Phil. 3. or any such Text. Argument 10. If the Doctrine of the Opponents holding the Affirmative were true then no man can tell whether he be a condemned Legalist or not yea more if it be not faith in Christ as such containing the whole Essence by which we are justified as opposed to works or which is none of the excluded works then no man can tell but he is a condemned Legalist But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Reason of the Consequence is because no man is able to tell you which is the sole justifying Act or which are the only acts if it be not faith Essentially that is it for among all the acts before mentioned if a man mistake and think one other E. g. faith in Christs Resurrection in Christ as King Judge Teacher c. is it by which he must be justified then he falls upon Justification by Works and so falls short of Grace for if it be of Works then it is no more of Grace else Works were no Works And so no man can tell but he destroyeth Grace and expecteth Justification by works much less can weak Christians tell I never yet saw or heard from any Divine a just Nomination with proof of the one Justifying act or a just Enumeration of the many acts if all must not be taken in that are Essential Some say Affiance is the only act but as that 's confuted by the most that take in Assent also so there are many and many acts of Affiance in Christ that are necessary and they should tell us which of these it is Object And do you think that we can any better tell when we have all that are Essential Or doth every weak Christian believe all the twenty Articles that you mentioned at first Answ 1. We can better know what is Revealed then what 's unrevealed The Scripture tells us what faith in Christ is but not what one or two acts do Justifie excluding all other as Works Divines have often defined Faith but I know not that any hath defined any such one act as thus exalted above the rest of the Essence of Faith If we covld not tell what is essential to Faith we could not tell what faith is 2. The twenty Objects of Assent before mentioned are not all Articles or material Objects the second is the formal Object And of the rest unless the Fifth Believing that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin may be excepted which I dare not affirm