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
being the condition For against faith it self being any Condition you may equally argue Its the ungodly that are justified But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification is not to be called ungodly Ergo c. But if you take ungodliness as you do for unadequate holiness to the Law I deny your Minor Can no man but the Perfectly obedient perform the condition of pardon in the Gospel Treat ib. So that this is very considerable that all those whom God justifieth he justifieth them not for any thing they have of their own or any conditions they have performed but as such who are sinners in a strict examination and so deserve condemnation and therefore no works of grace are looked upon Answ I have answered this fully in Colvinus 1. Though Protestants oft say that God saveth men for their obedience and Scripture use the term because oft yet I am willing to yield to you that men be not saved nor justified for any thing of their own or for any conditions But yet he would not justifie them without the performance of some conditions but would condemn them for the non-performance even with a special condemnation distinct from that which is for their sins against the Law 2. Colvinus was the first man and you are the second that ever I read to my remembrance saying that God justifieth men as sinners A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If as sinners then all sinners are justified If not as performers of any Condition then not as Believers These things want proof Treat ib. Lastly that all works are excluded is evident by the Apostles allegation out of David who makes mans blessedness to be in this that God imputeth righteousness without works Answ 1. This is sufficiently answered in the former 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Righteousness comes not only on the Circumcision whence you may see what works he means 3. Your selves expound the foregoing term ungodly of men that have not adequate holiness though sincere therefore you must so take this equipollent term without works for without that adequate holiness but it follows not that therefore it s without any humane act 4. Yet still I grant this also that its without any humane act considered as the matter of a Legal righteousness or as opposite to Christ or co-ordinate with him but not without any humane act as subordinate to Christ and as the matter of that Evangelical righteousness which is required in this Constitution Repent and Believe the Gospel viz. sincerely Treat pag. 223. And indeed it is at last confessed that its faith only that makes the contract between God and the soul that good works are not required to this initial consenting unto Christ so as to make him ours but in the progress This is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words That the first Justification is only by faith but the second by good works Answ How would you have your Reader understand these two insinuations 1. Have I so oft asserted that which you call my Confession and put it into an Index of distinctions least it should be over-lookt and told you as much so long ago in private writings and do you now come out with an Its at last confessed I hope you would not intimate that ever I denyed it or that ever I wrote Book of that subject wherein I did not expresly averre it But then that you think not better of me then I deserve I must tell you that when I still excluded works from our begun Justification it was external Obedience and not Repentance nor those acts of faith even the Receiving Christ as Lord and Teacher which those that oppose me call works 2. If you take it but for an argument to convince such as I that the Papists hold it Ergo c. I must complain that it is uneffectual But if you intend it for another effect on other persons viz. to affright them with the sound of so horrid a name or drive them away by the slink of it then you may possibly attain your ends But you should have attempted it only by truth Is it true that this is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words Yea is it not a notorious truth that it is quite another thing which the Papists affirm in somewhat like words 1. The world knows that the Papists by the first Justification mean the first infusion of renewing special grace 2. And that by the second Justification they mean the adding of further degrees of Sanctification or actuating that which before was given 3. That they hold faith justifieth in the first Justification constitutivè 4. And that works or holiness justifie constitutivè in the second Justification even as Albedo facit album vel doctrina indita facit doctum On the other side I have told you often privately and publikely that 1. By Justification I mean not Sanctification nor any Physical but a Relative change 2. That by first and second I mean not two states or works but the same state and works as begun and as continued 3. That faith justifieth neither constitutivè inhaerenter nor as any cause but as a Receiving Condition 4. And that works of external obedience are but a dispositive condition and an exclusion of that ingratitude that would condemn And now judge on second thoughts whether you here speak the words of Truth or Equity Treat ib. Against this general exclusion of all works is opposed ver 4. where the Apostle saith To him that worketh the Reward is of debt from whence they gather that works only which are debts are excluded Answ I never used or heard such a collection All good works are debts to God but our collection is that works which are supposed by men to make the reward of Debt and not of Grace are excluded Treat But if this be seriously thought on it makes strongly against them for the Apostles Argument is à Genere if it be by works it s of Debt therefore there are not works of Debt and works of no Debt Answ 1. If the Apostle argue à Genere then he argueth not from an Equivocal term and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus 2. And the Apostles Genus cannot be any thing meerly Physical because his subject and discourse is moral and therefore it is not every act that he excludeth 3. Nor can it be every Moral Act that is his Genus but only Works in the notion that he useth the word that is All such Works as Workmen do for hire who expect to receive wages for the worth or desert of their works I shall therefore here confute your assertion and shall prove that All works do not make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and consequently that Paul meaneth not either every Act or every Moral Act here but only works supposed Rewardable for their value What you mean by Works of Debt and Works not of Debt I
sin then I did but nominally and hypocritically take him for my Saviour To take him for my Teacher and become his Disciple importeth my Learning of him as necessary to the benefit And in humane contracts it is so Barely to take a Prince for her husband may entitle a woman to his honours and lands But conjugal fidelity is also necessary for the continuance of them for Adultery would cause a divorce Consent and listing may make a man your Souldier but obedience and service is as necessary to the Continuance and the Reward Consent may make a man your servant without any service and so give him entertainment in your family But if he do not actually serve you these shall not be continued nor the wages obtained Consent may enter a Scholar into your School but if he will not Learn of you he shall not be continued there For all these after-violations cross the ends of the Relations Consent may make you the subject of a Prince but obedience is necessary to the continuance of your Priviledges All Covenants usually tye men to somewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends The Covenant-making may admit you but it s the Covenant-keeping that must continue you in your priviledges and perfect them See more in my Confess pag. 47. 3. But I further answer you that according to the sense of your party of the terms faith and works I deny your consequence For with them Faith is Works And though in Pauls sense we are not at all justified by works and in Iames his sense we are not at first justified by works Yet in the sense of your party we are justified by works even at first For the Accepting of Christ for our King and Prophet is Works with them and this is Pauls faith by which he and all are justified Repentance is works with them And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon The Love and Desire of Christ our Saviour is works with them but this is part of the faith that Paul was justified by The like I may say of many acts of Assent and other acts Treat Lect. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is justified by fulfilling a Condition though he be thereunto enabled by grace yet he is just and righteous in himself But all justified persons as to Iustification are not righteous in themselves but in Christ their Surety and Mediator Answ 1. If this were true in your unlimited latitude Inherent Righteousness were the certainest evidence of damnation For no man that had inherent Righteousness i. e. Sanctification could be justified or saved But I am loth to believe that 2. This Argument doth make as much against them that take Faith to be the Condition of Justification and so look to be justified by it as a Condition as against them that make Repentance or Obedience the Condition And it concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Justification I am loth to dissent from you but I am loather to believe that all those are unjustified that take faith for the Condition of Justification They are hard Conclusions that your Arguments infer 3. Righteousness in a mans self is either Qualitaetive or Relative called imputed As to the later I maintain that all the justified are Righteous in themselves by an Imputed Relative Righteousness merited for them by Christ and given to them And this belief I will live and die in be the grace of God Qualitative and Active Righteousness is threefold 1. That which answers the Law of works Obey perfectly and live 2. That which answers the bare letter of Moses Law without Christ the sense and end which required an operous task of duty with a multitude of sacrifices for pardon of failings which were to be effectual only through Christ whom the unbelieving Jews understood not 3. That righteousness which answers the Gospel imposition Repent and Believe As to the first of these A righteousness fully answering the Law of nature I yield your Minor and deny your Major A man may be justified by fulfilling the condition of the Gospel which giveth us Christ to be our Righteousness to answer the Law and yet not have any such righteousness qualitative in himself as shall answer that Law Nay it necessarily implyeth that he hath none For what need he to perform a Condition for obtaining such a Righteousness by free gift from another if he had it in himself And as to the second sort of Righteousness I say that it is but a nominal righteousness consisting in a conformity to the Letter without the sense and end and therefore can justifie none besides that none fully have it So that the Mosaeical Righteousness so far as is necessary to men is to be had in Christ and not in themselves But the performance by themselves of the Gospel Condition is so far from hindring us from that gift that without it none can have it But then as to the third sort of righteousness qualitative I answer He that performeth the Gospel Condition of Repenting and Believing himself is not therefore Righteous in himself with that righteousness qualitative which answereth the Law of works But he that performeth the said Gospel Conditions is Righteous in himself 1. Qualitatively and actively with that righteousness which answers the Gospel Constitution He that believeth shall be saved c. which is but a particular Righteousness by a Law of Grace subordinated to the other as the Condition of a free gift 2. And Relatively by the Righteousness answering the Law of Works as freely given by Christ on that Condition This is evident obvious necessary irrefragable truth and will be so after all opposition Treat pag. 228. Yea I think if it be well weighed it will be found to be a contradiction to say they are Conditions and yet a Causa sine qua non of our Justification for a causa sine qua non is no Cause at all but a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a Moral efficiency and is a Causa cum qua not a sine qua non Answ 1. You do but think so and that 's no cogent Argument I think otherwise and so you are answered 2. And Lawyers think otherwise as is before shewed and more might be and so you are over-answered A Condition qua talis which is the strictest acception is no Cause at all though the matter of it may be meritorious among men and so causal If you will not believe me nor Lawyers nor custom of speech then remember at least what it is that I mean by a Condition and make not the difference to lie where it doth not Think not your self sounder in matter of Doctrine but only in the sense of the Word Condition but yet do somewhat first to prove that too viz. that a Condition as such hath a moral efficiency Prove that if you are able Treat ib. If Adam had stood in his integrity though that confirmation would have been of
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
viz. that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Justification and that to justifie a sinner is nothing else but to do away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent Righteousness And so Mr. Pemble disputes against it only as thus meant And Calvin also in his Antidot on this 6. Sess 6. chap. never once finds fault with them here but only for ascribing that to free Will which they should ascribe to effectual Grace and for making Justification to be Sanctification but not a word for making these Acts to be praeparatory to Justification Tractat. Theologic pag. 387 388. Vid. etiam Articuloâ— facultat Parisiens Art 4. de sensu Papissiâ—o Every man that makes Faith to contain many acts most Divines say Notitiam Assensum siduciam Amesius names five must needs make all those Acts to be pre-requisite to Justification besides Repentance and besides preparatory acts of common Grace No man that I know doth seem to come nearer you then Dr. Downame in placing justifying faith in Assent and so not taking it to contain so many acts And yet even he tells you that the act of the Will doth concur to Faith and that faith which a habit of the mind is seated as well in the Will as in the Vnderstanding and this is confessed by Farthers Schoolmen and the modern Doctors of the Romish Church Treat of Justif pag. 358.359 Yea for ought I can understand he extended faith as far as I and meant as I do herein pag. 348.349 352. he saith By the former which is a bare Assent we do after a sort Credere Christum acknowledge him to be the Saviour of these that believe in him By the latter which is the lively and effectual Assent working on the Heart we do credere in Christum and receive him to be our Saviour whereupon necessarily followeth Affiance in Christ and love of him as a Saviour Thus then by a true Belief we receive and Embrace Christ in our judgement by a lively Assent in our Hearts desiring earnestly to be partakers of him which Desire we express by our Prayer and in our Wills resolving to acknowledge and Profess him to be our only Saviour and to rest upon him alone for Salvation So that a true lively and effectual faith is the work of the whole soul that is to say as well of the Heart as of the Mind Rom 10.10 Act. 16.14 Act. 8.37 so far Dr. Downame Is not this as much as I say and the very same I only mention him having many more at hand because 1. you urge him and 2. I conjecture you think you go his way about the nature of faith If this be not as much as I say do but add what he saith pag. 15. and I think you have as much in this particular The true meaning saith he of the Question whether we are justified by Faith or by Works is not as opposing the inward Grace of Faith to the outward acts of Obedience which indeed aâ—eths fruits of Faith But as opposing the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith to the righteousness which is Inherent in our selves and performed by our selves And truly Sir I use to charge my conscience to enquire what may be the plain meaning of a Text and to embrace that and not against Light to be carryed by prejudice and this conscience tells me that this Resolution of Dr. Downame being so plainly agreeable to Paul is not to be rejected When I impartially consider what Paul driveth at my Judgement tells me that it was never his intent to advance any one simple Act of the soul into the office of justifying excluding all the rest but to advance Christ against mens own works which stood up then in competition with him And that Paul never meant that Assent Justifies but not Velle Acceptare Consentire Eligâ—re Fiduciam habere c. Suppose there be a mortal Disease that hath seized on a City which no man can cure but one only Physitian nor he but by a Medicine that will cost him as much as the lives of the Citizens are worth This Physitian comes and sends to them and offers then all without exception that if they will but take him for their Physitian and trust him with their lives he will not only manifest his skill that he is able to cure them but he will do it and pay for the Physick and not put them to pay a penny Hereupon some that are his enemies and some that are mistaken in the man upon false reports and some that judge of him by his outward appearance do all conclude this is some Deceiver he is not able to do any such matter none but fools will trust him and venture their lives in his hand Let us stir about and labour and we shall overcome it and do well enough On the contrary the Physitian having great compassion on the poor deluded people knowing their case better then themselves and having already bought the remedy for them doth send to them again to tell them all that those that will believe him and trust him he will certainly cure and the rest shall dye every man of them for all they think to labour it away I pray you now put our Questions here impartially 1. Is believing and trusting the Physitian some one single act excluding all others Or was it ever his intent to advance some one act of theirs 2. Would it not be a learned madness to dispute whether the Physitian make the act of Assent or the act of Willing only or Accepting c. or Affiance or Recumbency to be the Healing act and of what faculty that act was which must heal them 3. Is it the Trusting and Receiving him only 1. as one that hath brought a Remedy 2. Or as one that can and will cure us by it or 3. Also as one that must be obeyed in the use of that remedy for the effecting the cure which of these is it that he intends must be the Object of their Act 4. Doth Trusting him and Believing him exclude a Resolution to obey his Directions and the future actual obedience Surely no it includeth both But it excludeth both their trusting any other Physitian and their thinking to work away the Disease and cure themselves 5 Doth Trusting or Believing him cure these men as the Instrument or is it only a condition without which he will not cure them But this Question with you I may spare Lastly You question How I will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercision of Justification upon the committing a sin that wasts the conscience when I make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience Answ 1. Do you not discern that the Question concerneth you and every man as much as me and that it is of aequal difficulty upon your own and others opinion as upon mine Dr. Downame will tell you as well as I that Justification is a continued Act. So will Dr. Twiss and all that with him do
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.
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
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
28.13 Act. 3.19 with many more The Consequence is plain in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification and by others confessed a chief part and by all it s confessed to be made ours on the same terms as is Justification it self My fourth Proof is from those texts which make these kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to salvation if they are conditions of salvation then are they no less then conditions of our final Justification But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents and it s proved 1 Tim. 4.8 Heb. 5.9 1 Tim. 6.18 19. Luk. 11.28 and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24 25 26 27. Rev. 22.14 John 12.26 Rom. 8.13 Mat. 5.20 Mat. 19.29 Mat. 6.1 2 4 6. and 5.12 46. and 10.41 42. 2 Thess 1.5 6. Col. 3.23 24. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.7 8. Gal. 6.4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 2. Cor. 9.6 9. John 5.22 27 28 29 c. The Consequence is proved good first In that final Justification and Glorification have the same conditions as is plain both in many Scriptures mentioned and in the nature of the thing for that Justification is the adjudging us to that Glory and therefore so far as any thing is the cause or condition of the Glory it self it must be the reason of the sentence which adjudgeth it to us Secondly And salvation is as free as Justification and no more deserved by man and therefore the Apostle equally excludeth works from both Eph. 2.5 8 9. By Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of worke lest any man should boast so Tit. 3.5 6 7. more fully Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works exclude not sincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation then Justification by grace through faith without works doth not in Scripture sence exclude sincere obedience from being the condition of our final Justification nor Repentance from being the condition of our justification as begun for there is eadem ratio and the Text makes the one as free without works as the other But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures Ergo c. My fifth Proof is from those texts that in terms seem to assign a causality to such obediential acts which can be interpreted of no less then a conditionality such are Luke 19.17 Mat. 25.31 23 34 35 40 46. Gen. 22.16 17 18. 2 Chron. 34.26 27. Psalm 91.9 14. Mark 7.29 1 John 3.22 23. John 16.27 Rev. 3.10 and 3.4 and 7.14 15. c. And though some of these texts speak not of Divine acceptance to life yet first some do secondly and the rest speak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Justification A mans own works are excluded other Means and parts of salvation as well as that I run over these briefly and generally both because I expect that the bare texts without my Comments should work upon the Considerate and because I have been so much upon it formerly in other writings as Confess § 3. p. â—6 cap. 3. cap 5. § 2. pag. 117 118. alibi passim as that I apprehend in this work more tediousness than necessity But the chief thing that I further here intend is to answer some Objections that by a Reverend Brother in his second part of his Treatise of Justification are brought against me But before I come to his Arguments its necessary that I a little animadvert on his Description of Justification that we may first agree upon the sense of our terms or at least know how to understand one another Treat Of Justification p. 126. Justification is a gratious and just Act of God whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety a sinner but repenting and believing is pronounced just and hereby put into a state of Reconciliation and favour with God to the praise of Gods glorious attributes and to the Believers eternal salvation I shall not examine this Description by accurate Logical Rules c. Answ First Doubtless an accurate rather then popular definition would as soon be expected from you as from most and here as anywhere in a Treatise purposely on the Subject Secondly Pronunciation doth not go before Constitution not put us into a state of Reconciliation and favour but find us in it you say your self pag. 120. To justifie is to constitute and to declare or pronounce righteous And in your first Treatise of Justification pag. 7. Indeed the Apostle Rom. 5. saith many are made righteous by the second Adam which if not meant of inherent holiness doth imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not meerly declarative but also constitutive and indeed one is in order before the other for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be Treat p. The Application of Justification is attributed to the Holy Ghost Answ I know not of any such except first where Justification is taken for Sanctification Secondly or as the Holy Ghost is made the Author of the Promise though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith also Treat 16. The Socinians say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally not principally even so faith is said to save but this cannot be because Christ is God as well at Man and therefore cannot be instrumental but principal Answ As they err on one hand that say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally which flows from their blasphemous denyall of his God-head so it s an error on the other hand to say that Christ cannot be Instrumental but principal I prove the contrary first If Christ may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption and ruling of mankind then may he be an Instrument But c. Ergo c. Secondly If Christ may be a means he may be an Instrument but he may be a means for he is called by himself the way to the Father and a way is a means Thirdly He is called the Fathers servant therefore he may be an Instrument Fourthly He is said to come to do his Fathers will therefore he is his Instrument Fifthly All Power is said to be given him even the Power of judging John 5.22 and Matthew 28.18 19. therefore he is the Fathers Instrument in judging And your reason is invalid viz. because Christ is God for he is Man as well as God and so may be Instrumental Treat p. 129 130. It sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears that Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works but that those that are against the Covenant of Grace c. Answ A sin is against the Law of Grace or Gospel first because it is against some object revealed in the Gospel which the sin is against as Christ Thus sin was expiated by Christ 2ly As it is against a Precept of the Gospel and thus it is expiated by Christ 3ly As it is a breach of a mans own Promise or
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
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
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
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
answer 1. Righteousness is but a relation And therefore a thing which is naturally uncapable of being of it self physically apprehended This is past doubt 2. If it be physically received then either as a principle and quality or as an object Not the former For so we receive our first and after grace in sanctification but none ever said so in justification Nor indeed can that righteousness which is formally but a relation dwel in us as a principle or quality If we receive it as an object then by an Act Or if the soul were granted to be passive in reception of an object I have shewed that 1. It is but in apprehensione simplici None pleadeth for more But faith is not such 2. And so it would receive Christ no otherways then it receiveth any object whatsoever it thus apprehendeth 3. And this is not to receive Christ or his righteousness but the meer species of it according to your own Philosophers and if righteousness be but a relation and a relation as Durandus Dr. Twiss and many another thin be but Ens Rationis then the species of an Ens Rationis is a very curious Web Knowledge as D'Orbellis saith in 2. sent Dis 3. q. 3. is twofold i. e. sensitive and intellective and each of these twofold Intuitive and Abstractive Intuitive knowledge is indeed de objecto ut in se praesens quando scilicet res in propria existentia est per se motiva Exemplum de sensitiva est ut visus videt colorem yet this is but Recepiendo speciem non rem and this is not it in question Exemplum de intellectiva est ut visio Divinae essentiae à beatis This is utterly denyed to be at all by Doctor Stoughton Camer and other solid Divines against the School-mens judgement And if it be yet doubtless as we know not how so it is not such as faiths apprehension which we enquire after Cognitio Abstractiva est quando species rei movet ad cognoscendum rem ipsam hoc siveres sit in se praesens sive absens sive existat sive non Exemplum in sensitiva est ut phantasia imaginatur colorem Exemplum in intellectiva est ut intellectus cognoscit quidditatem coloris medicante ejus specie So that if it be either of these it were at the utmost but a passive reaception of the species and not of Christ or his righteousness 2. By what physical contact faith doth receive this might be enquired and 3. By what physical act of the Agent to neither of which questions can I imagine what tolerable answer can be given in defence of this cause 2. And if faith be a passive physical instrument it must have a Physical Efficiency and what is that to justifie why even God himself in this life doth that but by a Moral Act by his word and not by a physical as to particulars 3. But that which driveth me to the greatest admiration is How faith should Efficere patiendo If I should rip up this or require a demonstration of it in respect to the justification at judgement yea or in this life yea or of any effect I should lay such an odium on it from its absurdities that in dealing with you modesty doth forbid me to insist on it 4. The fourth requisite will be enquired after in the next Question save one The fourth Question is Whether other Graces may not be as properly called physical passive Instruments as Faith is your sense And I doubt not but they may though its true of neither For 1. If there be no physical reception of Christs righteousness imaginable but that which is per modum objecti and if other gratious acts have Christs righteousness for their object as well as that which you call faith then other Acts do receive Christs righteousness as well as saith but both branches of the Antecedent are true therefore the consequence the bare knowledge or simple apprehension of Christs righteousness per modum objecti may better pretend to this then recombency or affiance Yea and love it self more fitly then affiance may be said to receive or embrace its object which is not therefore false neither because Bellarmine hath it and you know he brings Austines plain words affirming love to be the hand by which they received him c. I confess if I first renounce not the concurrent Judgement of Philosophers I cannot approve of the common Answer which our Divines give to Bellarmine in this viz. That Faith receiveth Christs Righteousness first to make it ours but Love only to retain it and embrace and enjoy it when first we know it to be ours For though this say as much as I need to plead for acknowledging Love to be as properly a physical Reception for retention as Faith is for first Possession yet if affiance be taken in any proper ordinary sence it cannot thus hold good neither for so Affiance must signifie some act of the will in order of nature after love or at least not before it I acknowledge that so much of Faith as lyeth in the understanding is before Love in order of nature sicut ipse intellectus est simpliciter prior voluntate ut motivum mobili activum passivo ut Aquin. 1. q. § 2. a. 3.2 and 12. q. 13. a. 1. C. For as he Intellectus est primum motivum omnium potentiarium animae quoad determinationem actus voluntas verò quoad exercitium actus Aquin 12. q. 17. a. 1. C. But for the acts of the will toward Christ I could give you but to avoid tediousness I must forbear at large the Testimony of Aquinas Tolet Gerson Camero Amesius Zanchius Rob. Baronius Bradwardine Ravio Viguerius c. That Love is not only the first of all the Passions but even the first motion of the Will towards its Object and little or not at all different from Volition diligere being but intensive velle I have much more to say to this which here I must pretermit But still I speak not of Love as a Passion but a true closure as it were of the will with its Object as Good and expect love to be proper to the sensitive and strange to the intellective soul we must make it the same with Velle For Amor gaâ—dium in quantum significant Actus appetitus sensitivi passiones sunt non autem secundum quod significant Actus appetitus intellectivi inquit Aquinas 1. q. 2. a. 1.1 The fifth Question is Whether Faith be any Instrument of our Justification Answer Scotus gives many sences of the word Instrument and so doth Aquinas Schibler and most Philosophers that meddle with it and they give some so large as contain all causes in the world under God the first cause In so large a sence if any will call faith an Instrument of Justification I will not contend with him though yet I will not say so my self as judging faith to be no kind of cause of it at
reign is part of that faith which justifies Even willingness of his Reign as well as to be pardoned justified and saved from Hell by him or else few among us would perish For I never met with the man that was unwilling of these 3. And then it will easily appear Whether your Doctrine or mine be the more safe 1. Yours hath the many inconveniences already mentioned It maketh man his own justifier or the causa proxima of his own Justification and by his own Act to help God to justifie us for so all instruments do help the principal cause And yet by a self-contradiction it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth and so no vertue or grace Yea I think it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God Many such wayes it seemeth to wrong the Father and the Mediator 2. And it seemeth also to wrong mens souls in point of safety both by drawing them so to wrong God and also by laying grounds to encourage them in presumption For when they are taught that the receiving of Christs righteousness or of Christ for justification or the confident expectation of pardon or resting on Christ for it or a particular perswasion of it c. Is justifying faith and when they find these in themselves as undoubtedly they may will this much or else they cannot presume Is it not easie then to think they are safe when they are not As I said I never yet met with the man that was not willing to be Justified and saved from Hell by Christ and I dare say Really willing and but with few that did not expect it from Christ and trust him for it Now to place Justifying faith only in that which is so common and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made essential to faith as Justifying is strange For knowing that the godly themselves have fowly sinned and that no man can perish that hath Justifying faith how can they choose but presume when they find that which is called Justifying faith undoubtedly in themselves And to tell them it is not sincere or true because they receive not Christ also as King and Prophet and yet that such receiving is no part of justifying faith This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without it self a strange Truth in a signal concomitant and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant sign when he certainly feeleth the thing it self Will not such think they may sin salva fide When as if they were rightly taught that justifying saving faith as such is the receiving of Christ for Saviour and Lord and so a giving up themselves both to be saved and guided by him then they would find that faith in Christ and sincere obedience to Christ have a little neerer relation and then a man might say to such a presumer as I remember Tertullian excellently doth De poenitent Operum pag. mihi 119. Caeterum non leviter in Domixum peccat qui quum amulo ejus Diabolo poenitentiâ renunciasset hoc nomine illum Domino subjecisset rursus â—undem regressusuo erigit exultatione ejus seipsum facit ut denuo malus recuperata praeda sua adversus Dominâ—m gaudeat Nonne quod dicere quoque periculosum est sed ad adificationem proferendum est dâ—abolum Domino praeponit Comparationem enim videtur egisse qui utrumque cognoverit judicato pronunciasse â—um meliorem cujus se rursus esse maluerit c. Sed aiunt quidam satis Deum habere si corde animo suspiciatur licet actu minus fiat itaque se salvo metu Fide peccare Hoc est salva castitate Matrimonia violare salva pietate parenti venenum temperare sic ergo ipsi salva venia in Gehennans detrudentur dum salvo metu peccant Again your Doctrine seemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are justified and shall be saved and how can they know that who know not whether they have faith and how can they know that when they know not what justifying saith is and how can they know what it is when it is by Divines involved in such a cloud and maze of difficulties some placing it in this act and some in that and some in a Passive instrumentality which few understand If any man in the world do For the Habit of faith that cannot be felt or known of it self immediately but by its acts for so it is concluded of all Habits Suarez Metap T. 2. disp 44 § 1. pag 332. and instead of the act we are now set to enquire after the passion and so in the work of examination the business is to enquire how and when we did passively receive righteousness or justification or Christ for these which let him answer for himself that can for I cannot But now on the other side what inconvenience is there in the Doctrine of faith and justification as I deliver it As it is plain and certain saying no more then is generally granted so I think it is safe Do I ascribe any of Christs honour in the work to man No man yet hath dared to charge me with that to my knowledge and no considerate man I believe will do it I conclude that neither faith nor works is the least part of our legal righteousness or of that righteousness which we must plead against the accuser for our justification which is commonly called by Divines the matter of our justification The Law which we have broken cannot be satisfied nor God for the breach of it in the least measure by our faith or obedience nor do they concur as the least degree of that satisfaction But we must turn the Law over wholly to our Surety Only whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the said justification and salvation I say these conditions must needs be performed and that by our selves and who dare deny this and I say that the performance of these conditions is our Evangelical righteousness in reference to that Covenant as Christs satisfaction is our legal Righteousness in reference to that first Covenant or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteousness if we had so obeyed And for them that speak of inherent Righteousness in any other sense viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works rather then as a true conformity to the Law or Covenant of grace I renounce their Doctrine both as contradictory to it self and to the truth and as that which would make the same Law to curse and bless the same man and which would set up the desperate Doctrine of Justification by the works of the Law For if men are righteous in reference to that Law then they may be so far justified by it Nor do I ascribe to works any part of the office or
14.9 And therefore when we are freely pardoned bought from hell it is equal that Christ should rule us who bought us and that his Covenant hang till the continuance of our Legal title to pardon justification and glory and so the full possession of them upon this perseverance in sincere loving grateful subjection to him that bought us and by him to the Father And thus Sir I have digressed and used many words on this which to you I think needless not only because I perceive that you acknowledge the conditionality of obedience in some sense but tell me not in what sense but lest you should not discern my sense who desire to speak as plain as I can that you may truly see wherein we differ And that I also may see it when you have as clearly opened your meaning of your term Qualifications And for your Question Whether a godly man can think the Righteousness of Christ made his by working or only believing I answer causally and efficiently by neither I think though you think otherwise I dare not so advance faith and so advance man I remember good old learned solid Gatakers words to Saltmarsh pag. 53 It is your self rather then any of us that trip at this stone when you would have faith so much pressed in the Doctrine of salvation in regard of the gloriousness and eminency of the grace it self which to assert is not sound sic in Animadv in Lucium part 1. § 9. v. 7. The righteousness of Christ is made ours by Gods free gift but faith and true subjection are conditions of our participation and what interest each hath in the conditionality and on what grounds I have shewed I fear you give too much to faith and man You ask Is it repent and Christs righteousness by this is made yours Answer It is oftimes Repent and be forgiven and repent and be baptized and repent and believe and be forgiven but not efficiently by repenting nor believing but on condition of both though in ordaining them conditions God might intend one but as preparative or subservient to the other and not one equal terms or to equal use immediately And when you say that the dying Christian is directed to the Resting on Christ and eâ—ing the brazen Serpent not to be found in any thing but a righteousness by faith I never durst entertain any doubt of this it is no question between us only in what sense it is called a Righteousness by faith I have shewed even in opposition to Works in Pauls sense which make the reward to be of debt and not of Grace Rom. 4.4 where you say It is an Act Dependance not of Obedience that interests us in Christs Righteousness I answer It is no one Act but many It is an act of Assent first and thence the whole hath the name of faith it being so hard a thing to believe supernatural things as it would have been to us to believe Christ to have been God when we had seen him in the shape of man had we lived in those times when the Doctrine of faith came not with those advantages as now it doth And then it is an act of willing consenting electing affecting which three are but a velle Respectivum and so in the act all one in this in order of nature goes before any act which you can in any reasonable propriety call Dependance and I doubt not are far more essential to justifying faith yet I am heartily willing to take your acts of dependance for those also are more then one in the next place But it confoundeth and abuseth us and the Church in this controversie that many learned Divines will needs shun the strict Philosophical names of the several Acts of the soul and overlook also the natural order of the souls motions and they will use and stil use the Metaphorical expressions as apprehension improper dependance relying resting recombency adherence embracing with more the like I know Scripture useth some of these but then it is not in strict disputing as Joh. Crocius tels Bellarm. We may use apprehend figuratively because Scripture saith apprehendite disciplinans and lay hold on eternal life But this would quickly end disputation or else make it endless Yet in the places cited who knows not the same word hath different senses in the former being used for to accept and stoop to in the later for an earnest pressing on and endeavouring after as a runner to catch the prize And they will be loth to say these are all and each of them the justifying acts And where you add that it s not an act of obedience I answer 1. I would you had first answered the many Scriptures to the contrary produced in my Aphor. 2. It s true of the first interest in Christ further then faith is called obedience but not of the further continued and consummate interest 3. Doth not Christ say Take my yoak learn of me to be meek and lowly that they may have ease and rest Ease and Rest From what Why from what they came burdened with and that was sure guile and curse and what ever is opposed to pardon and justification Mat. 11. And Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in c. Rev. 21.14 And he is the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him Heb. 5.9 And Mat. 25. is who'ly and convincingly against you And so is the second Psalm wholly which makes subjection to Christ as King the great part of the Gospel condition Kiss the son conteineth more then Recombency in my judgement and yet no more then that true faith which is the condition of justification But no word in your paper brings me to such a stand as your next where you say And that is very harsh still which you express to expect the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your self through Gods workings Answ Truly it is quite beyond my shallow capacity to reach what you here mean to be so harsh what should I imagine That there are conditions upon which the Tenor of the Gospel gives Christ Righteousness you acknowldge And that he that performeth them not the Gospel giveth him none of it I know you confess these And that we must needs perform them our selves through Gods workings i. e. both enablement and excitation and co-operation I know you doubt of none of these for you have wrote against the Antinomians and Mr. Gataker hath evinced the sottish ignorance or impudency of Saltmarsh in denying Faith Repentance and Obedience to be the conditions on which performed by us we must enjoy the things promised Pardon c. or else not Yea in this paper you yield to this conditionality What then is the matter Is it harsh when yet you never once shew the fault of the Speech It must be either the falshood or the unfitness but you have yet accused it of
man hath of it the better he pleaseth Christ that is he had rather we would beware of sin as far as may be then sin and fly to him for Pardon Prop. 4. And we are agreed I think that the personal Righteousness of the Saints is so much the end of Christs Redemption and Pardoning Grace that the perfection of this is that blessed state to which he will bring them so that when he hath done his work Sanctification shall be perfect but Justification by Pardon of further sins shall be no more Heaven cannot bear so imperfect a state Prop. 5. We are agreed therefore that our Righteousness of Sanctification or the Doctrine thereof is so far from being any derogation or dishonour to Christ that it is the high honour which he intended in his work of Redemption that the Glory of God the Father and of the Redeemer may everlastingly shine forth in the Saints and they may be fit to love and serve and praise him Tit. 2.14 Prop. 6. It is past all doubt that this Inherent Righteousness consisteth in a true fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel-Promise and a sincere Obedience to the Precepts of Christ And so hath a double respect one to the Promise and so it is conditio praestita the other to the Precept and so it is Officium praestitum All Conditions here are Duties but all Duties are not the Condition Prop. 7. I think we are agreed that Justification by Christ as Judge at the great day hath the very same Conditions as Salvation hath it being an adjudging us to Salvation And therefore that this personal Evangelical Righteousness is of necessity to our Justification at that Judgement Prop. 8. And I think we are agreed that no man can continue in a state of Justification that continueth not in a state of Faith Sanctification ond sincere Obedience Prop. 9 We are agreed I am sure that no man at age is justified before he Repent and Believe Prop. 10 And we are agreed that this Repenting and Believing is both the matter of the Gospel-Precept and the Condition of the Promise Christ hath made over to us himself with his imputed Righteousness and Kingdom on condition that we repent and believe in him Prop. 11. It cannot then be denied that Faith and Repentance being both the Duty commanded and the Condition required and performed are truly a particular special Righteousness subordinate to Christ and his Righteousness in order to our further participation of him and from him Prop. 12. And lastly its past dispute that this personal Righteousness of Faith and Repentance is not to be called a Legal but an Evangelical Righteousness because it is the Gospel that both commandeth them and promiseth life to those that perform them Thus methinks all that I desire is granted already what Adversary could a man dream of among Protestants in such a Cause Agreement seemeth to prevent the necessity of a further Dispute To be yet briefer and bring it nearer an Issue If any thing of the main Thesis here be denyed it must be one of these three things 1. That there is any such thing as Faith Repentance or Sanctification 2. Or that they should be called an Evangelical personal Righteousness 3. Or that they are necessary to Justification and Salvtaion The first is de existentia rei The second is de nomine The third is de usu fine The first no man but a Heathen or Infidel will deny And for the second that this name is fit for it I prove by parts 1. It may and must be called A Righteousness 2. A Personal Righteousness 3. An Evangelical Righteousness 1. As Righteousness signifieth the Habit by which we give to all their own so this is Righteousness For in Regeneration the soul is habituated to give up it self to God as his own and to give up all we have to him and to love and serve all where his love and service doth require it No true habit is so excellent as that which is given in Regeneration 2. The sincere performance of the Duties required of us by the Evangelical Precept is a sincere Evangelical Righteousness But our first turning to God in Christ by Faith and Repentance is the sincere performance of the duties required of us by the Evangelical Precept Ergo. Object The Gospel requireth actual external Obedience and perseverance also Answ Not at the first instant of Conversion For that instant he that Believeth and Repenteth doth sincerely do the Duty required by it and afterward he that continueth herein with Expressive Obedience which is then part of this Righteousness 3. The true Performance of the Conditions of Justification and Salvation imposed in the Gospel-Promise is a true Gospel Righteousness But Faith and Repentance at the first and sincere Obedience added afterward are the true performance of these Conditions Ergo. 4. It is commonly called by the name of Inherent Righteousness by all Divines with one Consent therefore the name of Righteousness is past controversie here 5. That which in Judgement must be his justitia causae the Righteousness of his cause is so far the Righteousness of his person for the person must needs be righteous quoad hanc causam as to that cause But our Faith and Repentance will be much of the Righteousness of our cause at that day for the Tryal of us will be whether we are true Believers and penitent or not and that being much of the cause of the day we must needs be righteous or unrighteous as to that cause therefore our Faith and Repentance is much of the Righteousness of our persons denominated in respect to the Tryal and Judgement of that day 6. The holy Scripture frequently calls it Righteousness and calls all true penitent Believers and all that sincerely obey Christ righteous because of these qualifications supposing pardon of sin and merit of Glory by Christ for us therefore we may and must so call them Mat. 25.37 46. Then shall the righteous answer but the righteous into life eternal Mat. 10.41 He that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous mans reward Heb. 11.4 By faith Abel offered by which he obtained witnest that he was righteous God testifying of his Gifts 1 Pet. 3.12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous 1 John 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous Isa 3.10 Say â—o the righteous it shall be well with him Psal 1.5 6. Mat. 5.6 â—0 An enemy to the faith is called an enemy of righteousness Acts 13.10 2 Pet. 2.21 1 John 2.29 and 3.10 Gen. 15.6 And he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for righteousness Psal 106.31 Rom. 43.5 His faith is counted for righteousness ver 9. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness ver 22 24. 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
will not be effectual to our Justification without Faith and repentance But perhaps this Writer means only to shew his offence against my naming Christs righteousness legal If that be so 1. I have given in my reasons because there can be no better reason of a name then from the form and the form of Christs righteousness being relative even a conformity to the Law of works and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption I thought did sufficiently warrant this name 2. The rather when I find not only that he is said to fulfill the Law and all righteousness and be made a curse for us but also to be righteous with that righteousness which is denyed of us which can be none but a legal or prolegal righteousness 3. But yet if the name Legal be all I could easily have given this Brother leave to differ from me about a name without contention and methinks he might have done the like by me Mr. W. Object But what if works and faith were both of them applyed to procure our Justification Answ This Objection yet further shews that the Author understands me not if it be me as I have reason to judge that he writeth against for he supposeth that its works that I call a legal Righteousness when I still tell him it is Christs satisfaction and fulfilling the Law of which our faith or works are no part but a subordinate particular Evangelical Righteousness Mr. W. 5. If both these kinds of Righteousness were absolutely necessary then where one of them is wanting in a person there can be no Justification of that person But Ergo. For where was any Legal Righteousness of the good thief on the Cross condemned for legal unrighteousness Answ I deny your minor The converted thief had a legal righteousness hanging on the next Cross to him even Christ that then was made a curse for him and was obedient to the death of the Cross I begin to be a weary in writing so much only to tell men that you understand me not Mr. W. 6. If legal Righteousness be thus necessarily to be joined with our Evangelical Righteousness to Justification then there must be two formal causes of Justification Answ I deny your consequence If the formal cause consist in remission and imputation as you say then Christs meritorious righteousness is none of the Form but the Matter And if besides that Matter a subservient particular righteousness of faith be necessary as the condition of our Title to Christ this makes not two forms of this Justification 2. And yet I grant you that it infers a subservient Justification that hath another form when you are made a Believer or justified against the false charge of being no Believer or penitent this is not remission of sin but another form and thing Mr. W. 7. That which maketh void Christs death cannot be absolutely necessary to Justification But legal righteousness makes void his Death Gal. 2.21 Answ It s a sad case that we must be charged with making void Christs Death for saying that he is legally Righteous by satisfying and fulfilling the Law and that this is all the legal righteousness that we have I am bold therefore to deny the Minor yea and to reverse it on you and tell you that he that denyeth Christs legal Righteousness denyeth both his death and obedience The Text Gal. 2.21 speaks not of the Law as fulfilled by Christ but by us Righteousness comes not by our keeping the Law but it came by Christs keeping it yet so that the Gospel only giveth us that righteousness of his Mr. W. 8. That which concurs with another efficient must have both an aptitude and Confluence to produce the effect but the Law and consequently Legal righteousness hath no aptitude to give life Gal. 3.2 Answ This is Disputing enough to make one tremble and loath Disputing Is there no aptitude in Christs legal Righteousness to give us life The Law doth not give us righteousness but it denominateth Christ righteous for fulfilling it and the Law-giver for satisfying and to that it had a sufficient aptitude The Text Gal. 3.2 saith truly that the Law giveth not life but first it speaks of the Law as obeyed by us and not by Christ that fulfilled it Secondly And indeed its speaks of Moses Law and not directly of that made with Adam Thirdly And it denies not that Christ fulfilling it may give us life though the Law it self give us none so that all this is besides the business Mr. W. 9. That Doctrine which doth most exalt the Grace of God ought to be admitted before that which doth least exalt it But the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as our Gospel-righteousness doth most exalt his Grace and the other less Ergo. Answ Still misunderstanding Doth the Doctrine of faith alone without Christ advance Grace That 's no faith You do not think so that which denyeth Christ or faith denyeth Grace Mr. W. 10. That opinion which considereth a person under a two-fold Covenant at the same time ought not to be admitted But to require both Legal and Evangelical Righteousness is to consider him under the Covenant of works and Grace I conclude therefore that two sorts of righteousness are not necessarily required to our Justification Answ How far we are or are not under the Covenant of works I will not here trouble you by digressing in this rambling Dispute to enquire But to your Minor I say this opinion considereth man only under the curse of the Law till Christ take it off him by being made a curse for us and making over the fruit of his merits and suffering to us Mr. W. 2. As for the Subjects of these kinds of Righteousness I thus declare 1. That Jesus Christ and he alone who was truly endued with Legal righteousness who as he was made under the Law so he did not destroy but fulfill it and if he had not been the subject of Legal righteousness in himself he could not have been the Author of Evangelical Righteousness to us Answ Here after all these Arguments I have all that granted me that I contend for supposing the Imputation or Donation of Christs Righteousness to us whether in se or in â—ffectis I now dispute not You have here his full confession that Christ had a legal Righteousness Let him but grant the imputation of this and then it s ours And then I have granted him that it may be also called Evangelical in another respect Mr. W. pag. 166. I think it to be no incongruity in speech or Paradox in Divinity to say that Christs Legal righteousness is our Evangelical righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 2 Cor. 5.21 Jer. 23.8 Answ Sure we shall agree anon for all the ten Arguments Here 's all granted but the name as to us Many and many a time I have said that Christs Righteousness made ours is Legal in respect to the Law that it was a conformity to and which it answereth for us but
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
your Grounds conduce to it more then mine I shall like them better Sir pardon the prolixity here and Acrimony elswhere of Your unfeigned well-willer RICHARD BAXTER THE Reader must understand that since the Writing of this I have endeavoured to clear this point in my Directions for Peace of Conscience To which now I add but this that besides a Plenary Guilt or Remission there seems to be a Guilt and Remission that are both but imperfect and of a middle sort that is that as in Peters act of sin the habit of faith remained so with his Guilt a state of Justification remained As none of his old sins returned on him so the Covenant of Grace upon his Habitual Faith did hinder the Guilt from being Plenary or fixed by beginning a Remission I fear not to call it an imperfect Remission The Law doth pronounce Death on a man for every sin it is so far in force as to determine that Death is both deserved and due to this man for this sin But at the same instant though after in order of nature the Gospel that giveth pardon to Believers doth give an Imperfect pardon to David Peter and such Habitual Believers as soon as they sin before Faith and Repentance for that sin be actuall and their Pardon will become plenary when they actually Repent and Believe Their Sin is like the fault of a Kings Son or Subject that in a Passion should strike the King when yet Habitually he hath a loving Loyal heart to him He deserveth Death and by Law it may be his due but he is a Son still and the King will not take this advantage against him though he will not fully pardon him till he submit and lament his Fault We are still the Children of God notwithstanding those sins that go against the Habitual bent of our Hearts for that 's the Tryal but must have actual Faith and Repentance before we shall have full pardon Whether you will call that Pardon which the Promise giveth upon meer habitual Repentance A vertual Pardon and that which it giveth on actual Repentance an actual Pardon or what name you will give it I leave to consideration but compleat it is not in a case of heynous sin till Actual Repentance Though it may be in a case of some unknown unobserved or forgotten infirmities For the full condition is necessary to a full Pardon He is near the case of a man that hath a Pardon granted him for Murder but for want of some action to be performed he hath not yet possession of it and cannot yet plead it If you ask me what should become of such a man if he so die before Repentance I answer 1. I think it is a case that will never fall out For 1. God is as it were engaged by Love and Promise and by giving his indwelling Spirit to Believers to bring them to Repentance 2. The new Nature or Disposition of such a man will not suffer him to be long without Actual Repentance at least in some measure especially when Death shall look him in the faâ—e I doubt not but David did repent before Nathan spoak to him but God would not wake up with so short and secret a Repentance for so great and odious a Crime 2. But if you can prove it profitable for such a 〈◊〉 to be suddenly cut off before Repentance and that such a thing will be I should incline to think that he will be fully pardoned at the instant of Death and so saved because the Lord knoweth that he repented Habitually and vertually and would have done it actually if he had had time for consideration 3. Or if we should conclude that God hath purposely left men of such a middle condition without any certainty how he will deal with them that so no man may be encouraged to sin and in Impudency I think it no dangerous Doctrine nor injurious to the Body of saving Truth And thus I have now many years since the writing of the foregoing Papers told you in brief what satisfieth me concerning this difficult point for the reconciling of the guilt of every particular sin especially the more haynous with the Doctrine of persevering uninterrupted Justification Somewhat also I have said of it in my Papers expressing my Judgement about Perseverance lately published Jan. 5. 1657. 8. THE FOURTH DISPVTATION Qu. Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of Faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the Soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. I PUT these two Questions together for brevity and Elucidation of the Matter in doubt for so in effect they are but One avoiding all unnecessary Explication of terms concerning which we are agreed it is but little that I have need to say for your understanding of the sense of the Question 1. It is here supposed that Paul doth maintain Justification by Faith and opposeth it to Justification by the works of the Law and so opposeth Salvation by Grace and by works 2. It is supposed that non datur tertium there is no middle way of Justification besides these two by faith or by Works and therefore whatsoever Acts we are here justified by it must needs follow that those Acts are none of the Works that Paul here speaketh of as excluded and whatsoever Acts are excluded are none of the Faith by which Paul telleth us here that we are justified This we are agreed on and so it is often pressed by my Opponents that there is no third way which I grant them But note that I do not therefore grant them that there is no tertium or other act either implyed in Faith or subservient to it in that way of Justification that is by Faith It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all other Gracious Acts relating to Christ no not from this business of Justification as attendants on Faith or modifications of it implyed in it or subservient to it And therefore it will not follow that any third thing by which we are thus justified is either Faith or Works but only that is not Works because they are excluded 3. I put the Physical Act whose Unity we speak of in contradistinction to one moral Fact which may contain many Physical Acts such as Marriage which is one in a civil or moral sense but many Physical Acts and such as almost all Contracts be as taking a man to be my
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
I know not of one that 's not essential to Christianity And I think if we had Hereticks among us that denyed Christ to be conceived by the Holy Ghost we should scarce take them for Christians But that man that shall deny or not believe that Christ is God that he is Man that he was no sinner that he dyed and that for our sins and that he was a Sacrifice or Ransom for us and that he Rose again is Glorified and will judge us that he hath offered us a pardon of sin that there will be a Resurrection of the body and life Everlasting by this our Redeemer I cannot see how he can be a Christian And for the number of Articles â— left out much of the ancient Creed it self the Belief in God the Father Creator c. in the Holy Ghost the Article of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints of Christs burial Descent into Hell and more And yet do you think this too big to be essential to Christian Faith If so tell not any Heretick that denyeth any one of these that he denyeth an Essential Article of our faith But for the ignorant weak Christian I say 1. He knoweth all these Articles that I have named but 2. perhaps not with so ripe a manner of apprehension as is formed into mental words or which he can express in words to others I find my self in my studies that I have somtimes an apprehension of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an expression 3. And perhaps they are not Methodical and Distinct in their conceptions and cannot say that there are just so many Articles Every sick man can understand what it is to desire and accept of such a man to be his Physitian and herein he first verily desireth health and secondly desireth Physick as a means to Health and thirdly desireth the Physitian in order to the use of that means and fourthly therein doth take him to be a Physitian and fifthly to have competent skill and sixthly to be in some measure faithful to be trusted and seventhly doth place some confidence in him c. all this and more is truly in his mind and yet perhaps they are not ripened and measured into such distinct conceptions as that he can distinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language or doth observe then as distinct Conceptions in himself and whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not see many Objects though ab objectis the acts must be called many and divers is a Controversie among Philosophers and as I remember Pet. Hurtad de Mendoza affirmeth it But if you your selves will form all these into distinct conceptions and ask your Catechist his judgement of them its like he can mak you perceive at least by a Yea or Nay that he understands them all The new formed body of the Infant in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man and yet so small that you cannot so easily discern them as you may do the same parts when he is grown up to manhood So the knowledge of every particular Essential Article of faith is truly in the weakest Christian in the very moment of his conversion but perhaps it may be but by a more crude imperfect Conception that observeth not every Article distinctly nor any of them very clearly but his knowledge is both too dim and too confused And yet I must say that it is not only such as some Papists call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or knowledge As to believe only the General Revelation and the formal Object as that the Scripture is Gods Word and God is true or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article of faith is true while they know not what the Church or Scripture doth propound for this is not actual Christian faith but such a part as a man may have that is no Christian And yet some Papists would perswade us that where this much is there is saving faith though the person believe not yea or deny by the probable Doctrine of seducing Doctors some of the foresaid Essential Articles Argum. 11. If the terms Faith in Christ receiving Christ Resting on Christ c. are to be understood as Civil Political and Ethical terms in a moral sense then must we suppose that they signifie many Physical acts and not any one only But these terms are to be thus morally understood Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus Terms are to be understood according to the nature of the Subject and Doctrine But the Subject and Doctrine of the Gospel which useth these terms is Moral Political therefore the terms are agreeably to be interpreted The same term in Physick Law Mathematicks Soldiery Navigation Husbandry c. hath various significations but still it must be interpreted according to the nature and use of the doctrine Art or Science that maketh use of it The consequence of the Major is proved because it is the use of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret such phrases as containing divers Physical Acts. Marriage is one Civil act but it is many Physical Acts it containeth divers acts of the understanding concerning the Essentials of the Relation and divers acts of the Will in consenting thereunto and the outward words or signs of Consent for making the Contract So taking a man to be my King my General my Tutor Teacher Pastor Physician Master c. all signifie the acts of the Understanding Will and expressing Powers which the several parts of the Objects do require Argument 12. If there be many Acts besides Faith in Christ attendant on it and subservient to it which are none of the works which Paul excludeth and opposeth faith to then the Essential Acts of faith it self are none of those works But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances For a man to repent of sin to confess it to believe and confess that we are unworthy of any Mercy and unable to justifie our selves or make satisfaction for our sias and that we are in absolute necessity of Christ having no Righteousness Sanctification or Sufficiency of our own to take God for our Father reconciled in Christ and to Love him accordingly to forgive our Brethren from the sense of Christs forgiving us to shew our Faith by fruitfull works and words When Paul saith Rom. 4.4 5. To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace the meaning is not To him that repenteth to him that denieth himself and his own Righteousness to his Justification to him that confesseth his sin that loveth God as a reconciled Father in Christ c and when he saith To him that worketh not but believeth the meaning is not to him that loveth not God to him that repenteth not that forgiveth not others c. but believeth Object But yet it may be to him that thinketh not to be justified by or for these but by Faith Answer 1. Concomitants and Subordinates may not be set in opposition faith supposeth the Concomitancy and Subserviency of these in and to Justification 2. Believing in Christs Ransom may as well be excluded too if men think to be justified for so doing meritoriously 3. He that thinketh to be Justified by any work in that way which is opposed to Justification by Grace and Faith must think to be justified by the Merit of them or without a Saviour which all these Graces forementioned contradict 4. God saith expresly that we must Repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out and repent that we may be forgiven and if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and if we forgive we shall be forgiven and that by works we are justified and not by faith only and that by our words we shall be justified So that Pauls works which he opposeth faith to are neither Jame's works nor any of these particulars mentioned for these are made necessary conditions or means of pardon and of some sort of Justification such as Pauls works could not contribute to which were falsly imagined by the doers to make the Reward to be not of Grace but Debt Object There is but one faith Eph. 4.3 Answer But that One faith hath many Physical Acts or Articles There is but one true Religion but it hath many parts There is but one Gospel but that one contanieth many particular Truths COnsect 1. To be justified by Faith is to be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and not by any one part of that Faith excluding any of its Essential parts 2. To be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and so as Rising Teaching Pardoning Ruling Judging as well as satisfying i.e. as the Saviour that hath undertaken all this is not in Pauls sense to be justified by works therefore it is the true Justification by Faith 3. It is therefore unsound to make any one Act or part of Faith the fides qua Justificans and the other Essential parts to be the fides qua justificat when no more can be said of any but that it is fides ex qua justificamur and that may be said of all 4. Though Faith be an Acceptance of Christ and Life as offered in the Gospel so that its very Nature or Essence is morally Receptive which may tolerably be called its Metaphorical Passive Instrumentality yet are we not justified by it qua talis that is qua fides and so not quatenus Instrumentum tale Metaphoricum vel Acceptatio vel Receptio moralis but qua conditio Testamenti vel faederis prastita 5. Therefore it is not only the Acceptance of Righteousness by which we are justified much less the Affiance in Christ as dying only but the Belief in Christ as the Purchaser of Salvation and as the Sanctifier Guide and Teacher of our souls in order thereunto hath as true an Interest in our Justification as the believing in him for Pardon And so far as any other holy act doth modifie and subserve faith and is part of the Condition of Justification with it so far by it also we are justified FINIS
moral disposition which is necessary to him that will be in the nearest Capacity to be justifyed by God The last words Believing in his blood I use not as the only way that is taken by the Opponents but as one instance among divers For they use to express themselves so variously as may cause us to think by many as we know it of some that they take more waies then one in opposing us First Some of them say that the only Act of faith that justifieth is our believing in Christs blood or sufferings or humiliation Secondly Others say That it is the believing in or apprehending and resting on his whole Righteousness even his Obedience as Obedience to be it self imputed to us Thirdly Other Reverend Divines say that it is the apprehending and resting on his Habitual as well as Active and Passive Righteousness that his Habits may be imputed to us as our Habitual Righteousness and his Acts as our active Righteousness in both which together we are reputed perfect Fulfillers of the Law and his sufferings as our Satisfaction for our breaking the Law As for those that mention the Imputation of his Divine Righteousness to us they are so few and those for the most part suspected of unsoundness that I will not number it among the Opinions of Protestants Fourthly Others say that the justifying Act of Faith is not the apprehension of Christs Righteousness or Ransome but of his Person and that only as he is Priest and not as Prophet or King Fifthly Others think that it is the apprehension of Christs person but not in his intire Priestly office for he performeth some Acts of his Priestly office for us Intercession after we are justified Therefore it is his Person only as the Satisfier of justice and Meritor of Life which they make the adequate Object of the justifying Act of Faith Sixthly Others say that it is both his Person and his satisfaction Merit Righteousness yet Pardon and justification it self that is the adequate Object By which they must needs grant that it is not one only single Act but many Seventhly One Reverend man that 's now with God Bishop Vsher understanding that I was engaged in this Controversie did of his own accord acquaint me with his Judgement as tending to reconciliation And because I never heard any other of the same mind and it hath a considerable aspect I shall briefly and truly report it as he expressed it He told me that there are two Acts or sort of Acts of Faith By the first we receive the Person of Christ as a woman in Marriage doth first receive the Person of her Husband This is our Implantation into Christ the true Vine and gives us that Union with him which must go before Communion and Communication of his Graces and so before justification The second of Faiths Acts are those that apprehend the Benefits which he offereth Of which Justification is one and this is strictly the Justifying Act of Faith and followeth the former So that said he it is true that the first Act which apprehendeth Christs person doth take him as King Priest and Prophet as Head and Husband that we may be united to him but the following acts which Receive his Benefits do not so but are suited to the several benefits The opinion is subtile and I perceived by his Readiness in it that it was one of his old studied points and that he had been long of that mind my answer to him was this You much confirm me in what I have received for you grant the principal thing that I desire but you add something more which I cannot fully close with but shall plainly tell you what are my apprehensions of it First You grant that the act of faith by which we are united to Christ and which goes first is the Believing in or Receiving whole Christ as Priest Prophet and King This will do all that I desire Secondly You add that another act even the Receiving of his Righteousness is after necessary that we may be justified Your reason seems to be drawn from the difference of the effects Union goes before Justification therefore the uniting act goes before the justifying act This is it that I deny My Reasons are these First Scripture distinguisheth between our Union with Christ and our Justification but no where between the uniting and justifying acts of faith Secondly The nature of the thing requireth it not because faith justifies not by a Physical causality as fire warmeth me but by the moral interest of a condition and the same act may be the Condition of divers benefits Thirdly Scripture hath express made the Receiving of the person in his Relations to be the Condition of the participation of his benefits As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God John 1.12 whoever believeth in him shall not perish but c. believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved c. Fourthly Your own Similitude cleareth what I say Though the wife have not possession of all that is her husbands as soon as she is married yet she hath Right to all that is her part and possession of the benefits meerly Relative which consist but in a Right The accepting his person in marriage is the condition to be by her performed to instate her in his Honours so far as she must partake of them When she is made a wife by that Consent there needs not any other act before she can be noble honourable a Lady a Queen c For the former was the full condition of the first possession of this benefit and the benefit immediately resulteth from the Union Fifthly I conceive that these two acts which you mention are but one moral work though divers Physical acts and to be done without any interposition of time before we can have Christ for Union or Justification For the end is Essential to Relations and he that receives Christ must take him to some end and use and that must be to Justifie Reconcile and save him to bring him to God that he may be blessed in him He that doth not receive Christ to these ends receiveth not Christ as Christ and therefore cannot be united to him and he that doth thus receive him doth both those acts in one which you require Sixthly And the case is much different between Physical and Relative benefits For its true that when we are united to Christ we may have after need of renewed acts of faith to actuate the Graces of the Spirit Inherent in us For here Right is one thing and Possession is another But the Relation of Sonship Justification c. are benefits that arise from the promise or free Gift by a meer resultancy to all that are united to Christ and whoever hath present Right to them even thereby hath possession of them so that this answereth your Reason For there is no such distance of time between our Union with Christ and Justification
him is the means of Receiving all 1 John 5.11 12. God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his son He that hath the son hath life and he that hath not the son hath not life So that accepting Christ as Christ makes him ours by way of condition and then our life of Justification and sanctification is in him and comes with him Coming to Christ as Christ is the sole undivided condition of Life John 5 40. Ye will not come to me that ye may have Life Yet here I must crave that Ingenuous dealing of the Reader that he will observe once for all and not expect that I should on every call recite it that though I maintain the unity of the condition not only in opposition to a separating division but also to a distributive division of Conditions yet I still maintain these three things First that quoad materiale Conditionis that faith which is the condition doth believe all the essential parts of Christ office distinctly and so it doth not look to his Exaltation in stead of his Humiliation nor è Contra but looks to be Ransomed by him as a sacrifice and meritoriously justified by his Merits and actually justified by him as King Judge and Bnefactor c. And that it eyeth also distinctly those Benefits which salvation doth essentially consist in at least And it takes Christ finally to Justifie Adopt Sanctifie Glorifie c. distinctly But still it s but one condition on which we have Title to all this Secondly That I maintain that in the Real work of sanctification the several acts of faith on several objects are distinct efficient causes of the acting of several Graces in the soul The Belief of every attribute of God and every Scripture truth hath a several real effect upon us But it is not so in Justification nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation for there our faith is not a true efficient cause but a Condition and faith as a condition is but One though the efficient acts are divers The Belief of several Texts of Scripture may have as many sanctifying effects on the soul But those are not several conditions of our Title thereto God saith not I will excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text. In the exercise of Grace God worketh by our selves as efficient causes but in the Justifying of a sinner God doth it wholly and immediately himself without any Co-efficiency of our own though we must have the disposition or Condition Thirdly I still affirm that this One undivided condition may have divers appellations from the Respect to the Consequent benefits for I will not call them the effects This one faith may be denominated importing only the Interest of a condition a justifying faith a sanctifying faith an Adopting faith a saving faith preserving faith c. But this is only if not by extrinsick denomination at the most but a Virtual or Relative distinction As the same Center may have divers denominations from the several lines that meet in it Or the same Pillar or Rock may be East West North or South ad laevam vel ad dextram in respect to several other Correlates Or plainly as one and the same Antecedent hath divers denominations from several Consequents So if you could give me health wealth Honor Comfort c. on the condition that I would but say One Word I thank you that one word might be denominated an enriching word an honouring word a comforting word from the several Consequents And so may faith But this makes neither the Materiale nor the Formale of the Condition to be divers either the faith it self or condition of the Promise Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general and of Gods imposed Condition in specicial enough to perswade us that the benefit dependeth usually as much or more on some other act as on that which accepteth the benefit it self then we have reason to judge that our Justification dependeth as much on some other act as on the acceptance of Justification but the Antecedent is true as I prove First As to Covenant Condition in general it is most usual to make the promise consist of somwhat which the party is willing of and the condition to consist of somewhat which the Promiser will have but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to And therefore it is that the Accepting of the benefit promised is seldome if ever expresly made the Condition though implicitly it be part because it is supposed that the party is willing of it But that is made the express condition where the party is most unwilling So when a Rebel hath a pardon granted on condition he come in and lay down arms it is supposed that he must humbly and thankfully accept the pardon and his returning to his allegiance is as truly the condition of his pardon as the putting forth his hand and taking it is If a Prince do offer himself in maraiage to the poorest Beggar and consequently offer Riches and Honors with himself the accepting of his person is the expressed condition more then the accepting of the riches and honors and the latter dependeth on the former If a Father give his son a purse of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him or ask him forgiveness of some fault here his kneeling down and asking him forgiveness doth more to the procurement of the gold then putting forth his hand and taking it Secondly And as for Gods Covenant in specie it is most certain that God is his own end and made and doth all things for himself And therefore it were blasphemy to say that the Covenant of Grace were so free as to respect mans wants only and not Gods Honor and Ends yea or man before God And therefore nothing is more certain then that both as to the ends and mode of the Covenant it principally respecteth the Honor of God And this is it that man is most backward to though most obliged to And therefore its apparent that this must be part yea the principal part of the condition Every man would have pardon and be saved from hell God hath promised this which you would have on condition you will yield to that which naturally you would not have You would have Happiness but God will have his preeminence and therefore you shall have no Happiness but in him You would have pardon but God will have subjection and Christ will have the honour of being the bountifull procurer of it and will be your Lord and Teacher and Sanctifier as well as Ransom If you will yield to one you shall have the other So that your Justification dependeth as much on your Taking Christ for your Lord and Master as on your receiving Justification or consenting to be pardoned by him Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Christ himself and the benefits
believing the record that God hath given of his Son and that record is not only concerning Justification or the merit of it So 2. Thes 2.12 That all they might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness So 2 Thess 1.8 9 10. That obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the description of the Vnbelievers opposed to them that believe ver 10. So Jo. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins which as to the act and effect is contrary to justifying faith And that I am he is not only that I am the Ransome but also that I am the Messiah and Redeemer So John 16.8 9. He willl reprove the world of sin not only in general that they are sinners but of this sin in specie because they believed not in me Many texts may be cited where justifying faith and condemning unbelief are described from acts of the understanding though the will be implyed as believing or not believing that Christ is the son of God c. which cannot possibly be restrained to his Ransom and Merit alone The Consequence cannot be denyed if it be but understood that this unbelief doth thus specially condemn not in general as sin or by the meer greatness of it but as the privation of that faith by which only men are justified For Privatives shew what the Positives are And if this unbelief did condemn only as a sin in general then all sin would condemn as it doth but that is false And if it condemned only as a great sin then first every sin as great would condemn as it doth and secondly it would be Derogatory to the preciousness and power of the Remedy which is sufficient against the greatest sins as great It remains therefore that as it is not for the special worth of faith above all other Graces that God assigned it to be the condition of Justification so it is not for a special greatness in the sin of unbelief that it is the specially condemning sin but as it is the Privation of that faith which because of its peculiar aptitude to that Office is made of such necessity to our Justification But saith Mr Blake This is like the old Argument Evil works merit condemnation therefore good works merit salvation An ill meaning damns our good meaning therefore saves Repl. First A palpable mistake Meriting and saving by merit are effects or efficiencies so plainly separable from the things themselves that the invalidity of the Consequence easily appears But in good sadness did you believe when you wrote this that he that argueth from the description or nature of a privation to the description or nature of the thing of which it is the Privation or that argueth from the Law of opposites and contradictions doth argue like him that argues from the moral separable efficiency or effect of the one to the like efficiency or effect of the other Secondly But understand me to argue from the effect it self if you please so it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of God I doubt not but the Argument will hold good As under the Law of works it was a good argument to say Not-perfect-obeying is the condemning evil therefore perfect-obeying is the justifying condition So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace to say Not-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet is the specially-condemning unbelief therefore believing in Christ as King Priest Prophet is the faith by which we are justified The main force of the reason lyeth here because else the Covenant were equivocating and not Intelligible if when it saith He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned it did speak of one kind or act of faith in one Proposition and of another in the other If when it is said He that believeth shall be justified from all things c. and he that believeth not shall be condemned if you believe you shall not come into condemnation but if you believe not you are condemned and the wrath of God abideth on you He that believeth shall be forgiven and he that believeth not shall not be forgiven I say if the Affirmative and Negative Propositions the Promise and the Threatning do not here speak of the same believing but divers then there is no hope that we should understand them and the language would necessitate us to err Now the Papists Argument ab effectis hath no such bottom Bad works damn therefore good works save For the Covenant is not He that doth good works shall be saved and he that doth bad works shall be condemned But he that obeyeth perfectly shall be justified and he that doth not shall be condemned Or if they argue from the threatning of the Gospel against bad works to the merit of good quoad modum procurandi it will not hold viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit therefore good works procure salvation by way of merit For there is not eadem ratio and so no ground for the Consequence Nor did I argue ad modum procurandi Rejecting Christ as King doth condemn by way of merit therefore accepting him as King doth save by way of merit This was none of my arguing But this Rejecting or not believing in Christ as King is part of that Vnbelief which is by the Law of Grace threatned with condemnation therefore accepting or believing in Christ as King is part of that faith which hath the Promise of Justification And so if a Papist should argue not ad modum procurandi but ad naturam actus effecti I would justifie his Argument Raigning sin Rebellion or the absence of Evangelical good works is Threatned by the Gospel with condemnation at Judgement therefore good works have the Promise of salvation or justification at Judgement And that I may and must thus understand the Condemning Threatning and the Justifying promise to speak of one and the same faith I am assured by this because it is usual with God in scripture to imply the one in the other As in the Law of works with perfect maâ— the promise was not exprest but implyed in the Threatning In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die So in the Gospel the Threatning is oft implyed in the promise He that believeth shall not perish When the Lord saith The soul that sinneth shall die It implyeth that the soul that sinneth not shall not die And though we cannot say the like of the prohibition of Eating the forbidden fruit that is because the same Law did on the same terms prohibite all other sin as well as it And in the day that thou sinnest thou shalt die doth imply if thou sin not thou shalt not die So he that believeth shall be saved doth imply he that believeth not shall be condemned And so If thou believe thou shalt be justified implyeth If thou believe not thou shalt not be justified
alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relations variously act according to them And do not men that make address address themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a Father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come to him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cured by him Believers through faith go to Christ that hears all the Relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priesthood they are justified Repl. I ever granted that we are justified by trusting in Christs blood But not only by that Secondly It was God that sought satisfaction in Christs blood the Believer seeks for the fruit of that satisfactition Thirdly But now to the distinction I shall tell you freely my thought of it and the reasons of my resisting your use of it and then answer your reasons for it And first We must understand what it is that is distinguished whether the Habit of faith or the Acts As far as I am able to understand them they that understand themselves do intend to distinguish of the Habit by a virtual distinction and their meaning is The Habit of Faith which produceth both these acts doth justifie but not as it produceth the act of believing in Christ as Lord Teacher c. but as it produceth the Act of believing in his blood that is The habit is the remote cause and the act is the nearer cause and the habit justifieth by this Act and not by the other I verily think this is their meaning I am sure this is the most probable and rational that I can imagine But then first This contradicteth their ordinary assertion that it is not the Habit of faith but the act by which we are justified Secondly Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Christ as Lord c. is so much as the fides qua which if they will speak out and make no more ado the controversie will be much better understood For then it is a question that 's easily apprehended Whether only the act of faith in Christs satisfaction do justifie or the believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet or all that is essential to Christian faith This is a plain case which fides qua and qua do not illustrate But then I must add that this begs the question as used by them but decideth it not And as qua respecteth but the Matter of the condition q. d. The habit as it produceth this act and not that is the condition of Justification for else it justifieth neither as it produceth the one or the other so it is the very Question between us Whether it be one act or the whole essence of the Christian faith that is the Condition And this supposeth the determination of other controversies that are not yet determined There are three opinions of the Habit of faith First that the several acts of faith have several habits Secondly that the divers acts have but one habit of faith distinct from the habits of other graces Thirdly That faith love and all graces have but one habit If the first hold then the distinction as before explained hath no place If the last hold then the Habit of Love or Fear may be on the same ground said to justifie If I have before hit on their meaning then the distinction of the Habit is virtualis and the distinction of the acts is realis and they totally exclude all acts save that which they fix upon not from being present but from a co-interest But from what interest Of a Cause that we deny even to all Of a Condition that they grant to these which they exclude Next we must understand the members of their Distinction And sometime they express one branch to be fides qua justificat and sometime fides qua apprehendit Christum satisfacienrem c. As to the former it cannot be contradistinct from faith in Christ as Lord but from faith as sanctifying c. it being but a denominative or virtual distinction of one and the same faith from the several consequents And so I easily grant that fides qua justificat non sanct ficat vel glorificat and so of all the consequents of it As it is the condition of one it is not the condition of the other which is no more then to say that there is between the consequents Distinctio realis from whence the antecedent Really the same may be denominatively or virtually distinguished As the same man that goeth before a hundred particular men hath a hundred distinct Relations to them as Before them all The very same condition in a free Gift may be the condition of many hundred benefits and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively distinguished when yet it is as truly the condition of all as of one and hath equal interest as to the procurement And as for the other phrase that fides qua recipit Christum satisfacientem justificat properly it is false Docrine if qua signifie the nearest Reason of faiths interest in procuring justification for then it is but to say that fides qua fides justificat which is false The denomination and the description express but the same thing fides is the denomination and Receptio Christi is the description if therefore it justifie qua Receptio Christi then it justifieth qua fides that is qua haec fides in specie which is to ascribe it to the ◠credere with a witness And elsewhere I have disproved it by many Arguments But if qua be taken less properly as denoting only the aptitude of faith to be the condition of Justification then still the Question is begged For we say that as the act of believing in Christs blood-shed hath a special aptitude in one respect so the act of believing in his Resurrection Intercession c. and receiving him as King Teacher c. hath a special aptitude in other respects upon which God hath certainly made them the Conditions of our Justification with the other But if any should distinguish of the act of faith and not the Habit and say that fides qua credit in Christum ut Regem justificat sed non quâ credit in Christum ut Regem I accept the former as being all that I desire and grant the latter But then I say the like of the other act of faith that fides quâ credit in Christum satisfacientem non justificat because fides quà fides non justificat sed fides quâ conditio praestita And I think I need to say no more for the opening the Fallacy that this distinction useth to cover And now I come to peruse all that I can find that is produced to support this distinction And the most is certain pretended
again I shall yield so far to their Importunity as to recite here briefly the state of the Controversie and some of that evidence which is elsewhere more largely produced for the truth And First We must explain what is meant by Works and what is meant by Justification what by a Condition and what by the Preposition by here when we speak of Justification by works And then we shall lay down the truth in several propositions Negative and Affirmative It seems strange to me to hear men on either side to speak against the Negative or Affirmative of the Question and reproach so bitterly those that maintain them without any distinction or explication as if either the error lay in the terms or the terms were so plain and univocal that the Propositions are true only on one part what sense soever they be taken in No doubt but he saith true that saith that Works are the Condition of Justification and he saith as true that saith they are not if they take the terms in such different senses as commonly Disputers on these Questions do take them And its past all doubt that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law and that it is not of Works but of Grace and it s as certain that a man is justified by works and not by faith only and that by their Words men shall be justified and by their Words they shall be condemned Gods word were not true if both these were not true We must therefore necessarily distinguish And first of Works First Sometime the term Works is taken for that in general which makes the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Meritorious works Or for such as are conceited to be thus meritorious though they be not And those are materially either Works of perfect obedience without sin such as Adam had before his fall and Christ had and the good Angels have or else Works of obedience to the Mosaical Law which supposed sin and were used in order to pardon and life but mistakingly by the blind Unbelievers as supposing that the dignity of the Law did put such a dignity on their obedience thereto as that it would serve to life without the satisfaction and merit of Christ or at least must concur in Co-ordination therewith Or else lastly they are Gospel duties thus conceited meritorious Secondly But sometime the word Works is taken for that which standeth in a due subordination to grace and that first most generally for any moral virtuous Actions and so even faith it self is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fiduciall act of faith or less generally for external acts of obedience as distinct from internal habitual Grace and so Repentance Faith Love c. are not Works or for all acts external and internal except faith it self And so Repentance Desire after Christ Love to him denying our own Righteousness distrust in our selves c. are called Works Or else for all Acts external and internal besides the Reception of Christs Righteousness to Justification And so the belief of the Gospel the Acceptance of Christ as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption with many other acts of faith in Christ are called works besides the disclaiming of our own Righteousness and the rest before mentioned Secondly As for the word Justification it is so variously taken by Divines and in common use that it would require more words then I shall spend on this whole Dispute to name and open its several senses and therefore having elsewhere given a brief schem of them I shall now only mention these few which are most pertinent to our purpose First Some take Justification for some Immanent Acts of God and some for Transient And of the former some take it for Gods eternal Decree to justifie which neither Scripture calleth by this name nor will Reason allow us to do it but improperly Sometime it s taken for Gods Immanent present Approbation of a man and Reputing him to be just when he is first so constituted And this some few call a Transient Act because the Object is extrinsick But most call it Immanent because it makes no Alteration on that object And some plead that this is an eternal act without beginning because it is Gods essence which is eternal and these denominate the Act from the substance or Agent And other say that it begins in time because Gods Essence doth then begin to have that Respect to a sinner which makes it capable of such a denomination And so these speak of the Act denominatively formally respectively Both of them speak true but both speak not the same truth Sometime the word Justification is taken for a transient Act of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrinsick object And so first It s sometime taken by some Divines for a Conditional Justification which is but an act that hath a tendency to that change and this is not actual Justification Secondly Sometime it is taken for actual Justification and that is threefold First Constitutive Secondly Sentential thirdly executive First Constitutive Justification is first either in the qualities of the soul by inherent holyness which is first perfect such Adam once and the Angels and Christ had secondly or Imperfect such as the sanctified here have Secondly Or it s in our Relations when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory This is an act of God in Christ by the free Gift of the Gospel or Law of Grace and it is first The first putting a sinner into a state of Righteousness out of a state of Guilt Secondly Or it is the continuing him in that state and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular sins Secondly Sentential pardon or Justification is first by that Manifestation which God makes before the Angels in heaven Secondly at the day of Judgement before all the world Thirdly Executive Justification viz. the execution of the aforesaid sentence less properly called Justification and more properly called pardon consisteth in taking off the punishment inflicted and forbearing the punishment deserved and giving possession of the happiness adjudged us so that it is partly in this life viz. in giving the spirit and outward mercies and freeing us from judgements And thus sanctification it self is a part of Justification and partly in the life to come in freeing us from Hell and possessing us of Glory Thirdly As for the word Condition the Etymologists will tell us that it first signifieth Actionem condendi and then Passionem qua quid conditur and then qualitatem ipsam per quam condere aliguis vel condi aliquid potest hinc est pro statu qui factus est rem condendo deinceps pro omni statu quem persona vel res aut causa quoquo modo habet aut accipit But we have nothing to do with it in such large acceptions in which all things in the world may be called Conditions Vid. Martin in Nom. They
many Scriptures against you Put to your self it s enough to ask How can you constantly make Remission an Essential part of Justification and yet say that we cannot call it a state as we do Justification In your first Treat of Just Lect. 17. pag. 145. you say Prop. 4. Remission is not to be considered meerly as removing of evil but also as bestowing good It is not only ablativa mali but collativa boni a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Son-ship and a Right to eternal life as also peace with God and communion with him And why may we not say A state of Sonship or salvation as well as of Justification Treat ib. There is a Justification of the cause and of the person alwaies to be distinguished Answ There is no Justification of his cause which doth not so far justifie the person Nor any sentential Justification of the person but by justifying his cause Though his actions may not be justifiable yet when the cause to be tryed is Whether sinful actions be pardoned by Christ that cause must be justified if that man be justified Even as Accusations are not charged upon the person without some cause real or pretended Treat pag. 152. Not only Bucer who is known to place Justification both in Imputed righteousness and Inherent thereby endeavouring a Reconciliation with the Papists But Calvin li. 3. cap. 17. sect 8. To this purpose also Zanchy Answ Why then might not I have had as fair measure as Lud. de Dieu Bucer Calvin Zanchy especially when I go not so far And yet I take my self beholden to Guil. Rivet for helping me to some scraps of Phil. Codurcus who drives at this mark as you say Bucer doth though I cannot yet get the Book it self Treat pag. 158. O this is excellent when a man is amazed and in an holy manner confounded at his holiness as well as at his offences Answ So you before say they must be ashamed of their Righteousness as well as their sins I do not well understand these distinctions Nothing in all the world confoundeth me so much as the imperfection of my Holiness But I dare not think that imperfection to be no sin left I must think the perfection to be no duty and so come to works of supererrogation and Evangelical Counsels And Holiness considered in it self and not as sinful and imperfect is amiable in my eyes and I know not how to be ashamed of it without being ashamed of God that is its object and exemplar and heaven that is the state of its perfection Treat ib. Set some few even a remnant aside comparatively the whole Christian world both Doctors and people learned and unlearned fasten on a Justification by works Answ I hope not so many as you fear or affirm First all the Doctors and people of your judgement do not And if you thought those so exceeding few among Christians you would not take me for so singular as you do 2. None of the truly sanctified are such as you here affirm 3. The multitude of groundless presumers of Free Grace are not such And truly though I doubt Justiciaries are too common I do not think that such Presumptuous ones are so small a Remnant 4. The Libertines and Antinomians and many other Sects of their mind are none of this great number 5. I will yet hope for all this that you cannot prove it of the Doctors and people of half the Christian world Their hearts God knows And I will not yet believe that in their Doctrine about Justification by works the Greek Churches the Armenians Jacobites Copti's Abasineâ— c. do fasten on such dangerous sands or differ so much from you 6. I heard as eminent Divines as most I know some yet living in a publick meeting say that Bishop Vsher and Mr. Gataker affirmed that the Papists did not fundamentally differ from us in the Doctrine of Justification Treat pag. 167. By all these subtile Distinctions men would be thought Answ Your scope in that page seems to be against any distinguishing whatsoever about works in this proposition We are justified by faith and not by works If so that we must not run to any distinction but say that in every motion or sense Works are excluded and do justifie in none then I profess it is past my uttmost skill to justifie you for accusing Althamer as you do for saying Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum Yea if he had upon the reading of Mat. 12.36 risen higher and said Mentiris Christe in caput tuum For sure he that saith By thy words thou shalt be justified Or by works a man unjustified and not by faith only can no way possibly be excused from that crime if no distinction may verifie his words but they must then be taken as absolutely false which I will not be perswaded of Treat pag. 219. Serm. 23. Observ That even the most holy and regenerate man is not Iustified by the works of grace which he doth This truth is the more diligently to be asserted by how much the error that confronts it is more specious and refined and maintained by such abettors whose repute is not so easily cast off as the former we spake of Now you come purposely I perceive to deal with me I confess the repute of Abettors doth much to bear up opinions through the world even with them that speak most against implicit faith But you need not despair of casting off the repute of them you mention Mr. Robertson and Mr. Crandon can teach any man that will learn that lesson Treat ib. The Question is not Whether we are Iustified by works though flowing from grace as meritorious or efficient of Justification This the Opinionists we have to deal with do reject with indignation To make Works either merits or efficient causes of our Iustification before God they grant it directly to oppose the Scriptures yea they seem to be offended with the Orthodox as giving too much to faith because it s made an Instrument of our Iustification therefore they are to be acquitted at least from gross Popery Answ This is one passage which I understand by your Preface to you Sermons on John 17. you lookt for thanks for and I do freely thank you for it for the world is such now as that I must take my self beholden to any man that doth injure me with moderation and modesty But you might have done that justice to us Opinionists as to have put any causes at all instead of efficient causes when we had so often told you the Orthodox that we disclaimed all true causality and then your Reader would have been ready to hope that we are free also from the finer Popery as well as the gross But since I have heard of late times what it is that goes under the name of Antichristianity and Popery even with many that are able to call themselves Orthodox and others that dissent from them worse then
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
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
some to be the Conditions of life And if you believe not this I refer you to Mr. Blake who will undertake to prove more 2. But your assertion is groundless I said not that they are works of the Law What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gospel duty Do I call the duty a work of the Law because I say the Law condemneth the neglecters of it 3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion and against that which you dispute against Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers when the Gospel hath commanded faith Have I so much ado to perswade the men of your party that the Gospel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty and that it is truly a Law which the Lutherans have taught too many and now do you think that its only the Gospel that Curseth impenitent unelievers and that maketh punishment due for the remnant of these sins in penitent Believers Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and self-contradiction Treat ib. But above all this is not to be endured that Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the New Covenant and that there is no such breach but final impenitency For are the defects of our Repentance faith and love in Christ other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace our unthankfulness unfruitfulness yea sometimes with Peter our grievous revolts and apostacies What are those but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest though they do not dissolve it But it is not my purpose to fall on this because of its impertinency to my matter in hand Answ I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preached Reader I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour bare-faced To which end besides what is said before understand 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him 3. A violation of Gods constitution Believe and be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions which left us under a non-liberation for that time and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was executed 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant or Law of Grace as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment These are my usual limitations and explications And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all these under the general name of Covenant-breaking 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine and like to make Congregations blessed that our defects of repentance unfruitfulness and unthankfulness c. are such violations of the Law of Grace or the Conditions of the Gospel as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment That is in plain English to say We shall all be damned Treat ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Justification then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts and troubles whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perversness from the fore-named Doctrine but the very Genius of it tends thereunto For if a Condition be not performed then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed As in faith if a man do not believe he cannot say Christ with his benefits are his Thus if he have not works the Condition is not performed but still he continueth without this benefit But for works How shall I know when I have the full number of them Whether is the Condition of the species or individuums of works Is not one kind of work omitted when it s my duty enough to invalidate my Justification Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all seeing that one is required as a Condition Answ Your Argument is an unproved Assertion not having any thing to make it probable 1. Belief in Christ as Lord and Teacher is Works with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he believeth in Christ as King and Prophet and is his Disciple as well as when he believeth in him as Priest 2. Repentance is Works also with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he Repenteth as well as when he believeth 3. Do you not give up the Protestant cause here to the Papists in the point of certainty of salvation We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is sincere And how why by its fruits and concomitants and that we take Christ for Lord as well as Saviour or to save us from the power of sin as well as the guilt And is it now come to that pass that these cannot be known What not the signs by which faith it self should be known and therefore should be notiora This it is to eye man and to be set upon the making good of an opinion 4. Let all Protestants answer you and I have answered you How will they know when they Repent and Believe when they have performed the full of these believed all necessary Truths Repented of all sins that must be Repented of Whether it be the species or individual acts of these that are necessary Will not the omission of Repentance for one sin invalidate it Or the omission of many individual acts of faith are not those acts conditions c. Answer these and you are answered 5. But I shall answer you briefly for them and me It s no impossible thing to know when a man sincerely believeth repenteth and obeyeth though many Articles are Essential to the Assenting part of faith and many sins must be Repented of and many duties must be done God hath made known to us the Essentials of each It is not the Degree of any of them but the Truth that is the Condition A man that hath imperfect Repentance Faith and Obedience may know when they are sincere notwithstanding the imperfections Do you not believe this Will you not maintain it against a Papist when you are returned to your former temper what need any more then to be said of it 6. Your Argument makes as much against the making use of these by way of bare signs as by way of Conditions For an unknown sign is no sign to us 7. And how could you over-look it that your Argument
Instrument 4. And Repentance under the notion of a preparative or condition 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation or efficiency of works I yield as before 6. Paul expresly excludes only the works of the Law that is such as are considered in opposition to Christ or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works and not such as Christ himself enjoyneth in subordination to himself so they keep that place of subordination 7. Pauls Question is What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law And this he saith is no Works under any notion no not Faith but only Christs Righteousness and so faith must be taken relatively for certainly it is Christ and not Faith that is that Righteousness Is not this all that our Divines say or require and so say I over and over But Paul doth not resolve there what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his so directly but collaterally 8. Or if you say he do yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification I say it is without not only the operation but the presence of works which is more then you say 9. Or whether he speak of begun or continued Justification I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward as of debt and not of Grace As a man that works to yearn wages as Paul plainly saith Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace but of Debt These works I disclaim as sinfull in their ends But obeying the Gospel or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us should rule over us and running that we obtain and fighting the good fight of faith and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him and improving our Talent and enduring to the end and so doing good works and laying up a good foundation against the time to come I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement or the continuance of it here Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls sense as before but not works in this sense or in James his sense When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better and answered what I have said in that 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force For first you say the one saith a Justification by faith without works you make Faith as well as works c. Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works but without the works of the Law And I have shewed you what he means by works Rom. 4.4 2. I say no more then James that a man is justified by works and not by faith only I believe both these Scriptures are true and need no reconciling as having no contradiction in the terms And yet I speak not so broad usually as James doth Where you say that the Orthodox do sweetly reconcile them I know not who you mean by the Orthodox For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them Piscator and Pemble have one Interpretation and way of Reconciliation Calvin Paraeus and most Divines another Camero confuteth the best esteemed and hath another Brochmond with most of the Lutherans have another Jac. Laurentius Althemor and many more tell us of divers which of these you mean by the Orthodox I know not But if you exclude all those from the Orthodox that say as I say in this you will exclude as Learned Divines and well reputed of as most Europe hath bred viz. excellent Conrad Bergius Ludov. Crecius Johan Crocius Johan Bergius c. Who though they all dispute for Justification by faith without works understanding it of the first Justification for most Divines have taken Justification to be rigidly simul semel till Dr. Downam evinced that it is a continued Act yet they both take works for meriting works that respect the reward as of Debt and they say that otherwise Obedience is a Condition or cause as they make it of continuing or not losing Justification once attained And is not that to say as much as I And many more I can name you that say as much And you approve of Mr. Bals book which saith that works or a purpose to walk with God do justifie as a passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification You add that we may dispute c. but you know not how a godly man at his death can look on his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him c. Which speech seems strange to me I confess if I be so I am ungodly For I have been as oft and as long in the expectation of death as most men and still am and yet I am so far from being afraid of this that I should live and dye in horror and desperation if I could not look upon the conditions of the Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my self through goes workings If by our Graces you mean Habits I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant For what you say of the Papists you know how fundamentally almost they differ from me in this confounding the Covenants Righteousness c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my self I would shew wherein For your question How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned You know I have fully answered it both in the Aphorisms and Appendix And I would rather you had given me one discovery of the insufficiency of that answer then asked the Question again Briefly thus Guilt is an obligation to punishment as it is here to be understood Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation or Guilt and Punishment All Punishment is due by some Law According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience c. deserve punishment and Christ hath satisfied that Law and procured forgiveness of these imperfections and so acquit us from Guilt and punishment The new Law or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers and so not to the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience where they are sincere And where the Law threatneth not Punishment there is no obligation to Punishment or Guilt on the party from that Law and so no work for Pardon Imperfect believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly and it condemneth none for imperfection of degree where there is sincerity No man is ever pardoned whom the new Law condemneth that is final Unbelievers or Rejecters of Christ So that Christ removeth or forgiveth that obligation to punishment which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfections And for the Law of Grace where it obligeth not
to punishment that obligation which is not cannot be taken off nor that man pardoned that was never guilty Your Question occasioneth me to be unmannerly in opening these easie things to you that I doubt not knew them sure twenty years ago and more Though I confess I had not the clear apprehensions of them seven years ago What ever I was then thought by others I confess I was ignorant and am glad that God hath in any measure healed my ignorance though with the loss of my reputation of being Orthodox Where you add that conditions have a moral efficiency either you mean all or some if all or if this whereof we are in speech though I am loth to contest with you in Philosophy yet I must confess I never read so much in any Author nor can force my self to believe it Causa sine qua non est causa fatua It is as Schibler and others a meer Antecedent The word Moral is ambiguous but if you mean it as I conjecture you do for an efficiency interpretative in sense of Law as if the Law would ascribe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition I utterly deny it in the present case or if you mean that our fulfilling the conditions hath an efficiency on God to move him to justifie us as an impulsive procatarctick cause I not only deny it but deny that any such cause is properly with God or hath efficiency on him nor can it have the operation of the final cause which some call moral seeing it is none of Gods end nor can any thing move God but God nor be his end but himself If you mean by moral efficiency any thing else which is indeed no efficiency I stick not on meer words Sir I should not have presumed to expect so much labour from you as to write a sheet for my satisfaction had I not perceived that others expect much more to less purpose and that your letters express that hereafter you intend more If you deny me your answer to this I will trouble you no more And because I would have your labour as short as may be I shall only desire your answer to these few Questions which I ground on both your Letters because the clear resolving of these will be the readiest way to satisfie me Quest 1. Hath the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Glorification any condition on our parts or none If it have Quest 2. What are the Conditions Is not Love and Obedience part of the Condition Quest 3. Must not those Conditions be fulfilled by our selves or hath Christ fulfiâ—led them by himself for any man Quest 4. If we must fulfill him why may not a dying man look on them Or what mâ—â—â— Paul to rejoyce in the testimony of his Conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had his conversation c. And that he had fought a good fight and finished his courâ—â— c. And that in all good conscience c. and Hezekiah Remember Lord that I have walked before thee c. Quest 5. Can a man have any assurance ordinarily that death shall not let him into â—ell who hath no assurance that he hath performed these conditions and how should he have it Can he know that all shall work to him for good though he know not whether he love God or that there is no condemnation to him though he know not that he is in Christ and walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Quest 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to salvation but as meer figures then is not the Antinomian Doctrine true that we may not Act for Salvation Q. 7. What do you mean your self when you write against those that deny Repentance to be a Condition to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness but a sign Lect. 20. of Justification And when you say that Scripture limits Justification and Pardon only to those Subjects that are so and so qualified p. 171. where you instance in Repentance Confession Turning Forgiving others c. and make faith an Instrumental cause but say there are many qualifications in the Subject p. 172. And what mean you when you say p. 210. In some gross sins there are many conditions requisite besides humiliation without which Pardon of sin cannot be obtained where you instance in Restitution Besides those p. 148 149 150. Is it not safe when a man hath prerformed these conditions to look on them either living or dying Or what do you say less then I do here I know you are none of the men of contention and therefore will not recant your own Doctrine in opposition to me And if you did not mean that these are conditions of Pardon and Justification when you say they are who can understand you If those gross sins be in the unjustified you will not say that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Justification I know that you give more to faith and so to man then I do viz. to be the Instrument of his own Justification which I will not contend against with any that by an improper sense of the word Instrument do differ only in a term but what do you give less to Repentance and the rest then I do you say they are conditions and I say no more Qu. 8. And what do the generality of our Divines mean when they say that Faith and new Obedience are our conditions of the Covenant As I have cited out of Paereus Scharpius Willet Piscator Junius Aretius Alstedius who saith the condition of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith and partly Evangelical Obedience or Holiness of life proceeding from faith in Christ Distinct Chap. 17. p. 73. And Wendeliâ— the like c. If it be said that they mean they are conditions of Salvation but not of Justification Then Quest 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Justification at Judgement which you have truly shewed is more compleat then this Justificatio viae and our Glorification have different conditions on our part and so of our persevering Justification here Quest 10. And whether it be any less disparagement to Christ to have mans works to be the conditions of his Salvation then to be the bare conditions of his ultimate and continued Justification Seeing Christ is a Saviour as properly as a Justifier and Salvation comprizeth all Quest 11. What tolearable sense can be given of that multitude of plain Scriptures which I have cited Thes 60. For my part when I have oft studyed how to forsake my present Judgement the bare reading of the 25 of Matthew hath still utterly silenced me if there were no more Much more when the whole Gospel runs in the like strain Quest 12. Is not the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righteous that is not guilty of non-fulfilling or not obliged to punishment or guilty as from that same Law or Covenant And doth
not every man that is saved so fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant and so is Evangelically righteous The condition is not Believe and obey perfectly but sincerely Quest 13. If there be no such thing as a personal Righteousness necessary to salvation besides imputed Righteousness 1. What is the meaning of all those Scriptures cited Thes 22. that say there is 2. And of our Divines that say there is inherent Righteousness And 3. What real difference between the godly and the wicked the saved and damned Quest 14. Have you found out any lower place for Love and Obedience then to be bare conditions if you acknowledge them any way conducible to final Justification or Salvation If you have what place is it and how called and why hath it not been discovered unto the world To say they are qualifications of the Subject is too general and comprizeth qualifications of different Natures and it shews not how they are conducible to the said ends and why a man may not be saved without qualifications as well as with them if God have not made them so much as conditions Quest 15. Seeing I ascribe not to Evangelical Obedience the least part of Christs Office or Honor nor make it any jot of our legal Righteousness where then lies the error or danger of my Doctrine Quest 16. Do not those men that affirm we have an inherent Righteousness which is so pronounced properly by the Law of works accuse the Law of God for blessing and cursing the the same man and action And how can that Law pronounce a man or his action righteous which curseth him and condemneth him to Hell for that same Action It makes me amazed to think what should be the reason that Divines contest so much that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently righteous which they know condemns them rather then the Law of Grace or new Covenant which they know absolveth them that sincerely perform it When all Divines acknowledge an inherent Righteousness and that the Law of Works is fulfilled by none and that it pronnunceth none righteous but the fulfillers and when the condition of the new Covenant must be performed by all that will be saved and when the Holy Ghost saith that it was by faith and so pronounced and measured by the Law of faith that Abel the second Righteous man in the world offered the excellent Sacrifice and by it obtained witness that he was righteous God testifying of his gift c. Heb. 11.4 Quest 17. Do not those Divines that will affirm that our inherent Righteousness is so called from its imperfect conformity to the Law of works and that it is the Law that pronounceth them righteous lay a clear ground for Justification by works in the worst sense for if the Law pronounce their works and them properly righteous then it justifieth them and then what need have they at least so far of Christ or Pardon yea and what Law shall condemn them if the Law of Works justifie them At least do they not compound their Righteousness as to the law of Works partly of Christs satisfaction and partly of their own Works Quest 18. Whether you should not blame Dr. Preston Mr. Norton Mr. Culverwel Mr. Throgmorton c. for laying by the good sound definition of Faith as you call it as well as me And is it not great partiality to let the same pass as currant from them which from me must be condemned And why would you agree to such a corrupt definition being one of the Assembly when theirs in the lesser Catechism and indeed both is in sence the very same with mine And why may not I be judged Orthodox in that point when I heartily subscribe to the National Assemblies Definition viz. that Faith is a saving Grace whereby we receive and rest on Christ alone for Salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel Qu. 19. Do I say any more then the Assembly saith in the preceding Question What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin Answ God requireth of us to escape the said wrath and curse c. Faith in Jesus Christ repentance unto life with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption And is not Justification one benefit And is not final Justification a freeing us from that Curse Quest 20. Which call you the good sound definition of Faith When our famous Reformers placed it in Assurance Camero and others in perswasion such as is in the understanding others in Assent as Dr. Downam c. Others in a Belief of Gods special Love and that sin is pardoned Others in Affiance or Recumbency Others in divers of these Some as Mr. Ball calling it a fiducial Assent Others an obediential Affiancce Did not each of these forsake that which by the former was accounted the good sound Definition And why may not I with Dr. Preston Mr. Wallis c. say it is an Acceptance or consent joyned with Assent or with the Assembly and the rest say it is a receiving which is the same in a more Metaphorical term Quest 21. If you judge as Melanchton John Crocius Davenant Amesius c. that Faith is in both faculties how can you then over-leap the Elicite Acts of the will which have respect to means Eligere consentive uti Quest 22. If the formal reason of justifying faith lie in a Belief or Perswasion that Christ will pardon and save us or in an Affiance or resting on him or Trusting to him only for Salvation or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour meerly to justifie and save from Hell Why then are not almost all among us justified and saved when I scarce meet with one of an hundred that is not unfeignedly willing that Christ should pardon and justifie and save them and do verily trust that Christ will do it and the freer it is the better they like it If they may whore and drink and be covetous and let alone all the practise of Godliness and yet be saved they will consent If it be said that they rest not on Christ for Justification sincerely I Ans. They do it really and unfeignedly and not dissemblingly which as we may know in all probability by others so we may know it certainly by our own hearts while unregenerate So that it is not the natural but the moral Truth that is wanting And what is that And wherein is the Essential formal difference between a wicked mans resting on Christ for Justification and a true Believers To say it is seen in the Fruits is not to shew the Essential difference Quest 23. If resting on Christ for Justification be the only condition of final Justification What is the reason that Perkins Bolton Hooker Preston Taylor Elton Whately and all the godly Divines also yet living do spend most of their labour to bring men to obey Christ as their Lord
in other places between faith and any thing of ours that he admits of no medium 2. He instances in Abrahams works and excludes them now were Abrahams works works done by the meer strength of the Law Did not Abrahams Obedience and other works flow from Grace Were Abrahams works in opposition to Christ Yet even these are excluded 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the opposition justifying covering all is wholly attributed unto God 4. The Assertion is universal The Apostle saith without works in general ver 6. And he works not ver 5. Lastly By the testimony he brings from the Psalmist that blessedness is where sin is not imputed whrere it is forgiven These reasons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the act of Justification though not from the person justified 3. You say how then saith James true But I ask if there be justifying works how saith Paul true But again James saith true for this faith which in respect of its act ad intra doth only justifie yet it works ad extra The old Assertion is fides quae viva not quo viva You speak of a seeming Antilogie among the orthodox in this reconciliation but though all go not eadem semiâ—â yet they do eadem viâ against works under any notion whatsoever in the act of Justification 4. You argue that faith as an Instrument is excluded Thus Bellarmine also apprehendere est opus therefore faith is excluded But non sequitur Faith is passive in its Instrumentality and although to believe be a Grammatical action its verbum activum yet its physicâ—n or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passive A man by believing doth not operari but recipere As videre audire are Grammatical actions but Physical or natural passions now you cannot say thus of the exercises of other Graces this is the seeming strength of your Exceptions For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which is a fifth Exception As for your discourse whether Paul disputes what is our Righteousness or upon what terms it is made over to us it doth not much matter for indeed Paul speaks to both those only inclusively or collaterally as you say but that which he chiefly intends is to shew in what manner we are justified whether by believing or working and these he makes two immediate opposites not granting any tertium You speak of Faith taken relatively for Christs Righteousness but how can you find out such a figure for faith in your sence unless you will acknowledge Love or Obedience relatively for Christs Righteousness Indeed those that hold Faiâ—h instrumentally receiving the whole righteousness of Christ and no other Grace they often speak of faith taken relatively but so cannot you who hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other actions of sence will as well heal the wounded Christian You say you acknowledge the Assemblies definition of resting or receiving you cannot take in that sence as they declare it as the Scripture words which are Metaphorical do imply for its the resting of a burdened soul upon Christ only for Righseousness and by this Christs Righteousness is made over to us and it s a receiving of Christ as the hand embraceth any Object now you make the Righteousness of Christ made over to us in any other exercise of Grace as well as this So that although you would willingly seem not to recede from others yet you plainly do and although you think your Assertions are but more distinct explications yet they are indeed destructive Assertions to what our Divines do deliver neither may you while you intend to dispute exactly build upon some homiletical or popular expression in any mans book You reply to a second part in my Letter whether a godly man dying may be affected according to your position and thereupon you instance in Hezekiah Paul and that no man can dye with comfort without the evidence of these works But is this the state of the question with us Do you think that I deny a godly life to be a comfortable testimony and a necessary qualification of a man for pardon You cannot think that you speak to the point in this But here is the question Can a godly man dying think the Righteousness of Christ is made his by working or believing Is it repent and Christs Righteousness is by this made yours and rest in Christ Certainly the dying Christian is in agonies directed to this resting on Christ to the eying of this brazen Serpent not to be found in any thing but the Righteousness by faith It s an act of Dependance not of Obedience that interests us in Christs Righteousness It s that puts on the robes of Christ that our nakedness may not appear And that is very harsh still which you express to expect the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your se lf through Gods workings I am unwilling to parallel this with some passages that might be quoted out of unsound Authors but that I am confident howsoever your Pen-writes you have a tutissimum est to rest only upon Christs Righteousness and that by bare resting and beleiving you look for a Righteousness As Philosophers say we see or hear intus recipiendo not extra mittendo otherwise Bellarmine argues consonantly enough that Love would justifie as well as faith but we say that Faith doth pati Love doth agere Not but that faith is an active grace only in this act it is meer recipient Sir I have not time nor paper to answer those many questions the most of which I conceive impertinent to this business and your Explication of your self how imperfections in our Graces are done away and yet the conditions of righteousness is to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I cannot go any further What I have written with much love and respect to you I should account it a great mercy to be instrumental to bring you to the right way again If there be so much Joy for reducing a wandring sheep be not offended if I say there will be much more for an erring shepheard though I hope at last your error may prove in words rather then in sence with heartly brotherly love I have written this and so let it be received from your fellow-labourer who honours Gods gifts in you and is also sensible of his own infirmities and proneness to err Dear Sir IF you doubt of the truth of my bodily infirmity it is because you neither know my body nor mind The dispute at Bewdley as it was almost at home so I had the choice of the time and such strength vouchsafed from God which I cannot again expect much less promise my self I told you I have some lucida intervalla perhaps a few hours in a moneth but if upon such uncertainty I should draw you to a journey and then ten to one fail you I should be injurious But seeing you so far and freely condiscend
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
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
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
peformed per nudam resultantiam without any other Act to produce it And this is most properly called Justificatio constitutiva activa 2. When the Gospel hath by Gift constituted us Righteous then next in order it doth declare or pronounce us Righteous and vertually acquit us from Condemnation This is by the like silent moral interpretative Action only as the other And perhaps may be most fitly called the imputing of Righteousness or esteeming us Righteous as Piscator And for the latter Justification at Judgement the Action is Christs publique pleading and sentencing us Acquitt which is an Action both Physical and Moral in several respects 4. Now if we enquire after the Patient or rather the Object of these several Acts we shall quckly find that the Man is that Object but that Faith is any Patient here is past my apprehension For the first Act of God by the Gospel giving Christ and his Merit to us it is only a moral Action Though the writting and speaking the Word at first was a Physical action yet the Word or Promise now doth moraliter tantùm agere And therefore it is impossible that Faith should be Physically passive from it For Passion being an effect of Action it must be a Physical proper Action which produceth a physical Passion I will not stand to make your Assertion odious here by enquiring what Physical effective Influx Contact c. here is which should manifest Faith to be physically Passive I know in the Work of effectual vocation the Soul is first passive but that is nothing to our Question whether Faith be passive in Justification Do but tell me plainly quid patitur fides and you do the Business But what if you had only said that Faith is morally passive and not physically I answer It had been less harsh to me though not fit nor to the point For 1. Gods Justification nor Donation of Christ is not properly of or to Faith for then Faith should be made righteous and justified hereby but to the person if he Believe 2. Besides if you should confess only a moral Passiveness which is somewhat an odd phrase and notion and is but to be the Object of a moral Action it would spoil all the common arguments drawn from the physical nature of Faith and its sole excellency herein in apprehending receiving c. and thereby justifying And you would bring in all other Graces to which the same Promise may as well be said to be made 3. The Truth I have and further shall manifest to be this that as it is not to faith or any other act that Righteousness is given but to the person on condition he Believe so this condition is no passion but an action or divers actions This will fully appear in the Theological Reasons following In the mean time I need not stand on this because you express your self that Faith is physically pasâ—ive Indeed you add or hyperphysically but though I meet with some Philosophers that use in such cases to give hyperphysice as a tertium to overthrow the sufficiency of the â—istinction of physice moraliter yet I suppose that is none of your meaning who know that even Intellectus dum efficit intellectionem voluntas volitionem sunt causae physicae ut Suarez 1. Tom. disp 17. § 2. p. 260. and so Schibler and many more yea and that our Divines conclude that Gods action on our souls in conversion is first Physical which yet may be as truly and fully called hyperphysical as our Faith Now for the second action of the Gospel declaring or pronouncing the Believer righteous and so de jure acquitting him It is much more beyond my reach to conceive how faith can in respect of it be passive For 1. Besides that it is a moral action as the former and so cannot of it self produce a physical passion 2. It doth not therein speak of or to faith pronouncing it just and acquitting it but of and to the Believer So that if Faith were physically passive in the former yet here it is impossible 3. If you say that it is physically or morally passive in regard of the latter full Justification by sentence at Judgement you would transcend my capacity most of all To say faith is the Patient of Christs judiciary publique sentence is a sentence that shall never be an article of my Faith and is so gross that I conjecture you would take it ill if I should take it to be your meaning therefore I will say no more against it Now you know that this is as you say in your Lect. the most compleat Justification and which I most stand upon and therefore if your arguments fail in respect of this they yield me almost all I expect Next I will tell you my Reasons Theological why I believe not that justifying faith as such is passive 1. All Divines and the Scripture it self hath perswaded me that Christ and the Promises are the Object of this Faith but a Passion hath no Object but a subject c. Therefore according to you Christ c. is not the object of it which is contrary to all that I have heard or read 2. I have read Divines long contending which is the Act of justifying faith qua talis And some say one and some another but all say one or other or many Now you cut the knot and contradict all in making it at least quatenus Justificans no Act at all but a Passion unless you will say it is a passive act which I dare not imagine And doubtless these Divines shew by their whole speech that by Actus Fidei they mean Actus secundus vel Actio and not Actus primus vel entetativus vel accidentalis sive ut informans sive ut operativus sed ipsa operatio 3. I am truly afraid lest by entertaining this opinion I should strike in not only with the Antinomians who cannot endure to hear of any conditions of life of our performing but even with the Libertines who tell me to my face that man is but Passive and as the soul Acts the body so Christ in them moveth the soul to Good and Satan to evil while they are meerly Passive and therefore the Devil shall be damned for sin who committeth it in them and not they for who will bite the stone or beat the staff or be angry at the sword c. 4. Else you must depress the excellent grace of faith below all other in making it meerly Passive while others are active For doubtless life and excellency is more in Action then Passion 5. If believing be only suffering then all Infidels are damned only for not suffering which is horrid 6. Scripture frequently condemneth wicked men for Action for Rebellion Refusing Rejecting Christ Luke 19.27 They hate him and say we will not have this man reign over us c. and this is their unbelief If they resisted the Holy Ghost only Passivè non Activè then it would be
of Condition 4. And I need not say more to this it being acknowledged generally by all our Divines not one that I remember excepted besides Mr. Walker that faith justifieth as the condition of the Covenant Mr. Wotton de Reconcil part 1. l. 2. cap. 18. brings you the full Testimony of the English Homilies Fox Perkins Paraeus Trelcatius Dr. G. Downam Scharpius Th. Matthews Calvin Aretius Sadeel Olevian Melancth Beza To which I could add many more and I never spoke with any solid Divine that denyed it 2. Now that a physical apprehension would not justifie as such is evident 1. Else Mary should be justified for having Christ in her womb as I said before 2. Else justification as I said should be ascribed to the nature of the act of faith it self 3. You may see what is the primary formal reason why faith Justifies by its inseparablility from the effect or event and which is the improper remote cause by its separability Now such a physical apprehension may be as such separated from the effect and would still be if it had not the further nature of a condition We see it plainly in all worldly things Every man that takes in his hand a conveyance of land shall not possess the land If you forcibly seize upon all a mans evidences and writings you shall not therefore possess his estate If a traytor snatch a pardon by violence out of anothers hand he is not therefore pardoned But more of this under the next 4. And for your passive faith I cannot conceive how it should as passive have any Moral good in it as is said much less justifie us And so when God saith that without faith it is impossible to please God we shall feign that to be justifying faith which hath nothing in it self that can please God and how it can justifie that doth not please I know not I know in genere entis the Divels please God They are his creatures and naturally Good as Ens bonum convertuntur but in genere moris I know not yet how pati quatenus pati can please him For it doth not require so much as liberty of the will The reason of Passion is from the Agent As Suarez dis 17. § 2. Secundum praecisas rationes formales loquendo Passio est ab Actione non è converso Ideoque vera est propria haec causalis locutio Quia agens agit materia recipit Now sure all Divines as well as the free-will-men do acknowledge that there can be no pleasing worth or vertue where there is not liberty And Suarez saith truly in that T. 1. disp 19 pag. mihi 340. Addimus vero hanc facultatem quatenus libera est non posse esse nisi Activam seu è converso facultatem non posse esse liberam nisi sit activa quatenus activa est Probatur sic Nam Paisso ut Passio non potest esse Libera patienti sed solum quatenus Actio à qua talis Passio provenit illi est libera Ergo Libertas formaliter ac praecise non est in potentia patiente ut sic sed in potentia Agente Vide ultra probationem 5. Yea I much fear lest this Passive Doctrine do lay all the blame of all mens infidelity upon God or most at least For it maketh the unbeliever no otherwise faulty then a hard block for resisting the wedge which is but by an indisposition of the matter and so Originall indisposition is all the sin For as Aquinas saith Malum in Patiente est vel ab imperfectione vel defectu agentis vel indispositione Materiae 1. q. 49. a. 1. c. 3. My third proposition is that the Receptivity or apprehension which is truly of the nature of faith is yet but its aptitude to its Justifying office and so a remote and not the direct proper formal reason And this is the main point that I insist on And it is evident in all that is said already and further thus If faith had been of that apprehending nature as it is and yet had not been made the condition in the gift or promise of God it would not have justified but if it had been made the condition though it had been no apprehending but as any other duty yet it would have justified therefore it is evident that the nearest proper reason of its power to justifie is Gods making it the condition of his gift and its receptive nature is but a remote reason 1. If faith would have justified though it had not been a condition then it must have justified against Gods will which is impossible It is God that justifieth and therefore we cannot be a cause of his Action 2. It is evident also from the nature of this moral reception which being but a willingness and consent cannot of its own nature make the thing our own but as it is by the meer will of the donor made the condition of his offer or gift If I am willing to be Lord of any Lands or Countreys it will not make me so but if the true owner say I will give them thee if thou wilt accept them then it will be so therefore it is not first and directly from the nature of the reception but first because that reception is made the condition of the gift If a condemned man be willing to be pardoned he shall not therefore be pardoned but if a pardon be given on condition he be willing or accept it then he shall have it If a poor woman consent to have a Prince for her husband and so to have his possessions it shall not therefore be done except he give himself to her on condition of her consent If it were a meer physical reception and we spoke of a possession de facto of somewhat that is so apprehensible then it would be otherwise as he that getteth gold or a pearl in his hand he hath such a possession But when it is but a moral improper reception though per actum physicum volendi vel consentiendâ— and when we speak of a possession in right of Law and of a relation and Title then it must need stand as aforesaid Donation or Imputation being the direct cause of our first constitutive justification therefore conditionality and not the natural receptivity of faith must needs be the proper reason of its justifying This is acknowledged by Divines Amesius saith Bellarm. Enervat T. 4. p. mâ—hi 314. Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam non est simpliciter per modum objecti sed per modum objecti nobis donati Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum omni â—cum eo Scriptura disertis verbis testatur Rom. 8.32 2. And that if any other sort or act of faith as well as this or any other grace would have justified if God had made it equally the condition of his gift is also past all doubt 1. Because the whole work of Justifying dependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and
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
honour of faith Though that were not so dangerous as to derogate from Christ For I acknowledge faith the only condition of our first Remission and justification and the principal part of the condition of our justification as continued and consummate And if faith be an instrumental cause I do not give that honor from it to works for they are not so Nay I boldly again aver that I give no more to obedience to Christ then Divines ordinarily do that is to be the secondary part of the condition of continued and consummate justification Only I give not so much as others to faith because I dare not ascribe so much to man And yet men make such a noise with the terrible name of Justification by works the Lords own phrase as if I gave more then themselves to man when I give so much less And thus Sir I have according to your advice spent my self as you speak in aiming at that mark which you were pleased to set me And now I shall proceed to the rest of your exceptions My next answer to you was that If works under every notion are excluded as you say they are then repentance is excluded under the notion of a condition or preparative But repentance under that notion is not excluded Therefore not works under every notion To this you reply that Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which what is it but a plain yielding my Minor and so the cause For this is as much as I say If repentance be a work or act of ours and not excluded under the notion of a qualification or as you elsewhere yield a Medium ordinatum and a condition then works are not under every notion excluded And that repentance is not recipient how easily do I yeild to you But do you indeed think that when Paul excludeth the works of the Law that he excludeth them only as Recipient and not as qualifying If so as this answer seems to import seeing you will not have me here distinguish between works of Law and of Gospel or New Covenant then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I do or dare For I aver that Paul excludeth them even as qualifications yea and the very presence of them and that the Jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient To my next you say Whether Paul dispute what is our righteousness or upon what terms it is made ours it doth not much matter But I think it of very great moment they being Questions so very much different both in their sense and importance And whereas you think Paul speaks chiefly of the manner I think he speaks of both but primarily of the quasi materia and of the manner or means thereto but secondarily in reference to that So that I think the chief Question which Paul doth debate was Whether we are Justified by our own works or merits or by Anothers viz. the satisfaction of a surety which yet because it is no way made ours but by believing therefore he so puts the Question whether by works of the Law or by faith and so that he makes them two immediate opposites not granting any tertium I easily yield But of that before To the next you say that I cannot find such a figure for faith Relatively in my sense Answ And I conceive that faith in my sense may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours Doubtless acceptance of an offered Redeemer and all his benefits doth relate as properly to what is accepted viz. by the assent of the understanding initially and by the election and consent of the will consummately as a Physical Passive reception or instrumentality can do And also as it is a condition I make little doubt but it relateth to the thing given on that condition and that the very name of a condition is relative So that in my sense faith relateth to Christ two ways Whereof the former is but its very nature and so its aptitude to its office The later is that proper respect in which it immediately or directly justifieth Yet do I not mean as you seem to do as I gather by your phrase of putting Love and Obedience for Christs Righteousness For I conceive it may be put relatively and yet not strictly loco correlati for the thing related to when I say my hands or teeth feed me I do not put them instead of my Meat and yet I use the words relatively meaning my Meat principally and my teeth secondarily Neither do I mean that it relateth to Christs righteousness only or principally but first to himself And I doubt not but Love to Christ and Obedience to him as Redeemer do relate to him but not so fully clearly and directly express him as related to as Faith Faith being also so comprehensive a grace as to include some others It is a true saying that a poor woman that is marryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love and continued so by duty to her husband But it is more obscure and improper then to say she is made honourable by Marriage or taking such a man to her husband which includes love and implyeth duty and faithfulness as necessarily subsequent I conceive with Judicious Doctor Preston that faith is truly and properly such a consent contract or marriage with Christ Next to your similitude you say that I hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other Actions of sense will as well heal the wounded Christian To which I answer Similitudes run not on all four Thus far I believe that this holds 1. Christ was lift up on the Cross as the brazen Serpent was lift up 2. He was lift up for a cure to sin-stung souls as the brazen Serpent for the stung bodies 3. That as every one that looked on the Serpent was cured an easie condition so every one that believeth Christ to be the appointed Redeemer and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered and so trusteth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life 4. That as the cure of their bodies came not from any natural reason drawn from the eye or from any natural excellency or efficacy of seeing above hearing or feeling but meerly from the free will and pleasure of God who ordained that looking should be the condition of their cure So all those Acts usually comprized or implyed in the word believing which justifie do it not from any natural excellency efficacy or instrumentality but meerly from the good pleasure of the Law-giver And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith that is its very formal essence must not be given as the proper direct cause of its Justifying But that is its conditionality from the free appointment of God But on the other side 1. It was only one Act of one sense which was the condition of their cure but you will not say I believe that it is only one act of one faculty which justifieth however I will not 2. It
soul on Christ for Righteousness I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance but it is as Perkins Dr. Downam Rob. Baronius c. say a fruit Of faith strictly taken rather then faith it self but if you take faith in a larger sence as the Gospel not seldom doth and against which I am no adversary so Affiance is part of faith it self But that it is the whole of that faith I shall never believe without stronger Arguments where you say Its the receiving Christ as the hand embraceth any Object I answer 1. I am glad you here grant Christ himself to be the Object 2. If you mean as verily as the hand c. So I grant it if a moral receiving may be properly said to be as true as a physical But if you mean By a Physical Contact and Reception as the hand doth c. then I am far from believing that ever Christ or our Assembly so meant or ever had so gross a thought Where you say I take it not the in sence as the Scripture words imply I answer When I see that manifested I shall believe it When it is said John 1. He came to his own and his own received him not 1. Is it meant they took him not in their hands or received not his Person into their houses the later is true But 1. Only in a second place but their hearts were the first Receptacle 2. Else those were no Unbelievers where Christ never came in person And that had no houses 3. And that receiving cannot belong to us that never saw him nor to any since his Ascension 2. Or is it the Intellective Reception of his species I trow not I have said enough of that before 3. Or is it a moral Reception of him as thus and thus related volendo eligendo consentiendo diligendo pardon this last it is but the qualification of the rest consequenter fidendo I think this is it If you can find a fourth way you will do that which was never done to my knowledge and then you will be a Novellist as well as I. For your next expressions I answer to them that you do truly apprehend that I am loth to seem to recede from others and as loth to do it but magis amica veritas And I cannot believe what my list nor like those that can By which you may truly know that I do it not out of affectation of singularity as he knoweth that knoweth my heart nor intend to be any instrument of division in the Church And if my assertions are destructive of what others deliver it is but what some men and not what all deliver Not against the Assembly nor many learned Divines who from several parts of the Land have signified to me their Assent besides all those great names that appear for me in print But you tell me that I may not build on some Homilitical popular expressions in any mans books Answer Let me again name to you but the men I last named and try whether you will again so entitle their writings The first and chief is Dr. Preston who was known to be a man of most choice notions and so Judged by those that put out his books and his credit so great in England that he cracks his own that seeks to crack it And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Auditory at least as your Lectures and yet you defend your own expressions Yea it is not once nor twice not five times only but almost through all his Books that Dr. Preston harpeth upon this string as if it were the choisest notion that he intended to disclose Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as justifying and Dr. Preston was no homiletical Definer I can produce the like Testimony of Dr. Stoughton two as great Divines in my esteem as most ever England or the world bred Another is Mr. Wallis Doubtless Sir no homiletical popular man in Writing nor could you have quickly bethought you of an English Book that less deserves those attributes His words are these I assent not to place the saving Act of faith either with Mr. Cotton as his Lordship cites him in the laying hold of or assenting to that Promise c. nor yet in a particular application of Christ to my self in assurance or a believing that Christ is mine c. But I choose rather to place it in an act of the Will then in either of these forenamed acts of the Vnderstanding It is an Accepting of Christ offered rather then an Assenting to a proposition affirmed To as many as received him c. that is to them that believe in his name John 1. God makes an Offer of Christ to all else should not Reprobates be condemned for not accepting of him as neither the Devils are because he was not offered to them Whosoever will let him come and take of the water of life freely Rev. 22.17 Whereupon the believing soul replies I will and so takes him When a Gift is offered to me that which maketh it to be mine is my Acceptation c. If you call this taking of Christ or confenting that Christ shall be my Saviour a Depending a Resting or relying on Christ for salvation if you speak of an act of the Will it is all one for Taking of Christ to be my Saviour and committing my self to Christ to be saved is the same Both of them being but a consenting to this Covenant I will be your God and you shall be my People c. And if you make this the saving Act of faith then will Repentance so far as it is distinct from Faith be a consequent of it Confidence also c. Thus Mr. Wallis is clear that the Nature of Faith is the same that I have affirmed and in no popular Sermon but in his Truth tryed pag. 94 95. And on these grounds he well answers Bellarmines Dilemma which else will be but shiftingly answered The next is Mr. Norton of New England a man judged one of their best Disputants or else they would not have chose him to encounter Apollonius And will you call his very Definition of Faith in an accurate Catechism an homiletical popular expression What then in the whole world shall escape that censure His Words are Quest What is justifying Faith Answ It is a saving grace of the Spirit flowing from Election whereby the soul receiveth Jesus Christ as its Head and Saviour according as he is revealed in the Gospel I subscribe to this Definition from my heart The next cited was Mr. Culverwell not in any popular Sermon but in a solid well approved Treatise of Faith and not in common passages but his very definition of faith pag. 13.17 and after all concludes pag. 19. Thus we see that the very nature of faith consisteth in the true Acceptation of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel The next I cited about the Definition of faith was Mr. Throgmorton who in his accurate Treatise of Faith and not in any
12 though it do not properly cleanse the hands yet it plucks off the Gloves and makes them bare for washing and Godly sorrow with its seven Daughters 2 Cor. 7.11 are clensing things Dr. Stoughton Righteous mans plea for Happ Serm. 6. pag. 32. Faith comprehends not only the Act of the Vnderstanding but the Act of the Will too so as the Will doth embrace and adhere and cleave to those Truths which the understanding conceives and not only embracing meerly by Assent to the Truth of it but by closing with the Good of it What is that but loving tasting and relishing it As faith in Christ is not only the Assenting of a mans mind that Christ is the Saviour but a resultancy of the Will on Christ as a Saviour embracing of him and loving esteeming and honouring him as a Saviour The Scripture comprehends both these together and there is a rule for it which the Rabbins give for the opening of the Scripture viz. Verba sensus etiam denotant affectus as Jo. 17.3 This is eternal life to know thee c. It is not bare Knowledge the Scripture means but Knowledge joined with affections You see Dr. Stoughton took Love to be full as near Kin to Faith as I do Many the like and more full in him I pass I cited in my Append. Alstedius Junius Paraeus Scharpius Aretius Ball c. making Faith Obedience Gratitude Conditions of the new Covenant who saith not the same If all these be homiletical and popular I much mistake them which yet I cite not as if no words might be found in any of these Authors that seem to speak otherwise but to shew that I am not wholly singular Though if I were I cannot help it when I will On the next Q. Whether a dying man may look on his Faith and Obedience Duty as the condition of the N. Cov. by him performed You would perswade me that I cannot think that I speak to the point in this but you are mistaken in me for I can mistake more then that comes to and indeed I yet think I spoke as directly to the question in your terms laid down as was possible for I changed not one of your terms but mentioned the Affirmative as your self expressed it If you did mean otherwise then you spoke I knew not that nor can yet any better understand you Only I can feel that all the difference between you and me must be decided by distinguishing of Conditions but you never yet go about it so as I can understand you You here ask me Whether I think you deny a godly life to be a comfortable Testimony or necessary qualification of a man for pardon Answer 1. But the Question is not of the significancy or Testimony nor yet of all kind of qualification that is an ambiguous term and was not in the Question but of the conditionality 2. You yield to the term Condition your self elsewhere and therefore need not shun it 3. Qualifications and Conditions are either physical and remote of which I raise no question so the Essence of the soul is a condition and so hearing the Gospel is a natural Condition of him that will understand it and understanding is a natural Qualification of him that will believe it For ignoti nulla fides But it is another sort of conditions you know that we are in speech of which I have defined and Mr. Gataker before cited viz. Moral legal conditions so called in sensu forensi vel legali when the Law of Christ hangs our actual Justification and salvation on the doing or not doing such a thing Yet do I very much distinguish between the Nature and Uses of the several Graces or Duties contained in the conditions for though they are all conditions yet they were not all for the same reason or to the same use ordained to be conditions but repentance in one sence as preparatory to faith and Faith 1. Because it honoureth Christ and debaseth our selves 2. Because it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered is the most convenient means to make us Possessors without any contempt of the Gift with other reasons that might be found So I might assign the reasons as they appear to us why God hath assigned Love to Christ and sincere Obedience and forgiving others their several parts and places in this conditionality but I have done it in my Aphorisms but then all these are drawn from the distinct nature and use of these duties Essentially in themselves considered which is but their Aptitude for the place or conditionality which they are appointed to and would of themselves have done nothing without such appointment So that it is one question to ask Why doth Faith or Works of Obedience to Christ Justifie To which I answer Because it was the pleasure of God to make them the conditions of the Covenant and not because of their own nature directly and it s another Question Why did God choose Faith to the Precedency in this work To which I answer 1. Properly there is no cause of Gods actions without himself 2. But speaking of him after the manner of men as we must do it is because Faith is fitter then any other Grace for this Honor and Office as being both a high honouring of God by believing him that 's as for Assent and in its own Essential nature a hearty thankfull Acceptance of his Son both to be our Lord which is both for the Honor of God and our own good and our Saviour to deliver and glorifie us and so is the most rational way that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured happiness without either our own danger if a heavier condition had been laid upon us or the dishonour of the Mediator either by diminishing the estimation of the favour if we had done any more to the procuring it our selves or by contempt of the Gift if we had not been required and conditioned with so much as thankfully and lovingly to accept it And then if the Question be Why God hath assigned sincere Obedience and Perseverance therein to that place of secondary Conditionality for the continuance and consummation of Justification and for the attaining of salvation I answer Not because they have any such Receptive nature as faith but because Faith being an Acceptance of Christ as Lord also and delivering and resigning up the soul to him accordingly in Covenant this Duty is therefore necessarily implyed as the thing promised by us in that Covenant and so in some sence greater then the covenanting it self or the end of it and Christ never intended to turn man out of his service and discharge him from Obedience but to lay on him an easier and lighter yoak and burden to learn of him c. and therefore well may he make this the condition of their finding Ease and Rest to their souls Mat. 11.28 29. For for this end he dyed that he might be Lord Rom.
neither and yet say it is harsh But the reason you intimate because Bellarmine hath some such phrase which I never remembred or observed in him and little do I care whether he have or no If the Papists be nearer to us then I take them to be it is cause of joy and not sorrow But sure I am that Protestant Writers generally use the word Condition and Wendeline saith The Papists abuse us in feigning us to say the Gospel is absolute and saith the Gospel in each sence is conditional In one sence Faith is the Condition in another Faith and Obedience c. But here you come again to the Labyrinth and transcendent Mysterie of passive Faith nay you enlarge the Mysterie yet more 1. You say again Faith doth pati 2. And yet Love doth agere 3. Else you would yield that Bellarmine argues consonantly enough that Love would justifie as well as Faith 4. Yet you acknowledge Faith an Active Grace but only in this Act its meerrecipient Answer I confess my reason utterly at a loss in this but yet if it were in my Bible to me Intelligible I would believe it as I do the Doctrine of the Trinity and cease enquiring But I cannot so do by any Creature to make him the Lord of my faith and Reason 1. Whether Faith doth Pati I have enquired already 2. That Love doth Agere I verily believe and yet I have ofter heard Love called a Passion then Faith And as Keckeram saith the Affections are more Passive then the immanent Elicit Acts of the Intellect and Will And though as it is in the Rational soul Love saith Aquin. is no Passion but a Willing which causeth me to judge it so near Kin to Faith yet as it is in the sensitive it is a Passion So that I am quite beyond doubt that physically love is more properly called a Passion then Faith 3. Therefore for ought I know it is no wonder if Bellarmine bear the Bell and Papists be unconvinced if you have no better Arguments then this especially if no body else had better 4. But yet the Mysterie is far more unsearchable to me that faith should be Active in all other save only this Act. What is this thing called Faith which you make such a Proteus to be Active and Passive as to several Objects Yea when it is acknowledged the same Faith which receiveth Christ and Righteousness and the several promises and resteth on Christ for the Pardon of each sin for hearing each Prayer for Assurance Peace Comfort Deliverance from temptations and dangers and sin and is thus usefull through all our lives for the fetching of help from Christ in every streight yet that this same Faith should be Active in all the Rest and Passive only in One justifying Act. Oh For the face of an Argument to prove this Sure its natural Reception of one Object and another is in point of Passiveness alike and its assigned Conditionality in Scripture is of like nature as to each branch of the good on that condition promised 5. And here also I perceive by your speech you make it consist in some single act And yet you never tell what that is and how then can it be in several faculties as Davenant Amesius Joh. Crocius Melancth with most do affirm 6. But yet the depth of the mysterie to me lies in understanding and reconciling your words Only in this Act its meerly Recipient Is this an Act too and yet meerly Recipient which you make a meer Pasâ—ive reception A meerly Passive Act is such a contradiction in adjecto to my understanding that I cannot welcome the notion thither yea if you had said less that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Passive I never knew that an Act could Pati yet am I more conscious of mine own insufficiency then to contend with one of your knowledge in matter of Philosophy but I must needs say that your notions are yet so far beyond my reach that possibly I might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I so highly value yet am I not able to apprehend the sence The Joy in Heaven which you mention for a wandring sheep I think is meant of the first or some eminent recovery to Christ and not of every Philosophical notion sure Sir if salvation hang on this Doctrine as thus by you explained I am out of hope that either I or ever a one in all this countrey should ever come to heaven except by believing as that part of the Church believes which is of your opinion When I am yet apt to think that siding with any party in such opinions will not conduce to any mans salvation For I am of Bergius his mind that as it is not the Jew the Pagan or the Mahometan or any Infidel privative that shall be saved but the Christian so it is not the Papist the Lutheran the Calvinist the Arminian that shall be saved qua talis but the Catholick However I am in strong hopes that a man may be saved though he cannot understand how an Act can be a passive instrument nor do I think that my subscribing to that notion would make any great rejoycing in Heaven I am sorry you had not leisure to answer the Questions which were very pertinent to the business of my satisfaction though not to your business That my explication of that plain weighty necessary point how imperfect graces or duties can yet be the conditions of the New Covenant should seem a Paradox to you I say to you makes me yet more possest with admiration When you know that such conditions there are suppose it were but faith alone and you know your self that this faith is imperfect But I perceive we know but in part and therefore must differ in part He shall see whom God will enlighten I had far rather you had fallen upon that point then on the term of Justification by works If you would but grant me that Justifying faith as such is an Accepting of Christ for King and Prophet as well as for a Justifier and consequently that it is a resigning our selves to be ruled by him as well as to be saved by him I shall then be content for peace sake to lay by the phrase of Justification by workâ— though it be Gods own phrase if the Church were offended with it and required this at my hands So they will be satisfied with my silencing it without a renouncing it I have written thus largely that I might not be obscure and to let you see that though I have scarce time to eate or sleeep yet I have time and paper for this work and that I make not light of your dissent The Love and Respect which you mention to me I do as little doubt of as I do whether I have a heart in my breast and your desires of my reducing I know do proceed from your zeal and sincere affections That which I take worst is that you should
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
not Evangelical but Legal or it is in us and not in us Had you only pleaded that we are not justified by it as a Righteousness I should have answered you as before on that point Not as a Legal Righteousness nor an Evangelical Righteousness co-ordinate with Christs but as a fulfilling of the Condition of that Promise which gives us Christ and Pardon and Life by which performance of the Condition the Benefit becomes ours by the Will and Grant of the free Donor and we are no longer impenitent Infidels but just and justifiable from the false charge of being such and so of not having part in Christ It s one thing to be accused of sin as sin And another thing to be accused of the special sin of not accepting the Remedy and so of having no part in Christ and his Righteousness From the later we must have a real Faith and Title to Christ which must materially justifie us but from the former even from all sin that ever we are guilty of Christs Righteousness only justifieth us materially and meritoriously and our faith is but a bare condition A Confutation of the Error of Mr. Warners 13th Chapter about Justification and the interest of Obedience therein HE begins with a false Intimation that we revive the Papists first and second Justification and he that will believe him may take his course for me I crave only liberty for my self to believe that it is not all one to have Justification begun and continued and that Justification by the sentence of the Judge is not of the same kind with Justification Legal by the Donation of the Gospel If I may not have this Reverend Brothers leave to believe these matters I will believe them without his leave And that the Papists have such friends among us as those that make the world believe that such things as these are Popery I will also lament though such Disputers give not their consent His Endeavours to overthrow that Doctrine of mine which he nameth of second Justification begin pag. 223. where he argueth 1. from Rom. 5. 1 2 3. That the beginning and end is ascribed to faith Answer It s all granted faith is it that we are justified by to the last We are agreed of this inclusively But the Question is what 's the Exclusion Not believing in Christ as Lord and Master nor loving him but the works that make or are supposed to make that Reward to be of debt and not of Grace His second proof is from Phil. 3.7 8. To which I answer We are of Pauls mind but not of yours 1. He counted all as loss and dung that stood in opposition to or competition with Christ and so would I do by faith and love it self should they be so arrogant 2. Paul expresly nameth the works that he excludeth that is the Righteousness which is of the Law or in Legal works And do we make any doubt of this No nor of those works that materially are Evangelical for if they are formally Evangelical they cannot be set up against Christ their very nature being to subserve him Once for all remember this Argument Those works that are commanded by God in the Gospel are not excluded by God in the Gospel in that nature and to the use for which they are commanded But faith in Christ Jesus the Lord and Saviour an entire faith and Repentance towards God and love to him are commanded by God in the Gospel in order to the pardon of sin and the continuance of these with sincere Obedience are commanded as means of our continued pardon and as a means of our final Justification at Judgement Therefore none of these are excluded by the Gospel from any of these uses or ends He citeth also Act. 15. and Heb. 2.9 and Rom. 1.17 to as much purpose as the rest Pag. 228. He begins his Arguments The first is Because in vain are additions of numbers without which any thing may be done But without addition of works the act of justifying is perfect Ergo. Answer 1. As if the Question were of the Act of justifying and not of Justification passively taken Gods act hath no imperfection when yet it maketh not a perfect work 2. It s but spleen and partiality to harp upon the term works still to seduce your Readers to believe that I am for such works as Paul denyeth I use not the phrase of Justification by works nor think it fit to be used unless rarely or to explain such texts of Scripture as do use it or terms equipollent 3. Justification is neither perfect nor real without a faith in Christ as Head and Husband and Lord and Teacher and Intercessor as well as a Sacrifice for sin Nor is it perfect or true without repenting and loving Christ 4. Justification is so far perfect at first as that no sin past or existent is unpardoned But it is not so perfect but that 1. Many future sins must have renewed pardon 2. And means is to be used by us believing again at least for that end 3. And the continuance of pardon is given us but conditionally though we shall certainly perform the condition 4. And the most perfect sort of Justification by sentence at Judgement is still behind Are these things doubtfull among Divines or Christians That the Church must be thus molested by such disputing volumes against it to make the Papists and other enemies believe we hold I know not what Read the many Arguments of learned Sandford and Parker de Descensu and Bp. Vsher de Descensu to the Jesuite by which they prove that all separated souls as separated are under penalty and that Christs soul as seperated was so and then tell us whether your fancy of absolutely perfect Justification at the first will hold or not I wonder that men should so little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven a sinner in flesh and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God and should dream of such perfection short of heaven the place of our perfection His second Argument is Faith and works are here contrary If of Faith then not of works Answer It s true of the works that Paul excludes but not of the works that you exclude For Faith in Christ is Works with such as you save only that act that resteth on his satisfaction for righteousness And repentance and love to Christ and denying our own righteousness are works with you And all these are necessarily subservient to Christ and Grace and therefore not contrary Augustine and after him the School-men put it into their most common definition of Grace that its a thing qua nemo male utitur And as to efficiency it s certainly true Grace doth not do any harm And if I may presume to tell Augustine that objectively Grace may be ill used yet perhaps he might reply not qua talis without contradiction In good sadness Is it not a strange thing for a man in his wits to expect to be
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
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
following exercitation And what think you is the happy Light that deserveth all this ostentation Why 1. On the Negative we are satisfied that he means not What fides qua fides can do And then we are secure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adversaries cause 2. The Light then is all but this That qua here is not taken Reduplicative but specificative when by the particle qua or quatenus there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition as when we say man as a reasonable creature feeleth In this latter sence saith he I believe the particle qua or quatenus is taken when we do not say faith as faith but faith as Justifying viz. as a Grace designed to this act or operation of Justifying looks on Christ as Saviour Answ This Chapter was worth the observing For if this be the Basis of all the Exercitation and the Light that Generated all the rest the dispatch of this may serve for all It seems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Distinctions in the end of Castaneus and meeing with Reduplicative and specificative admired the distinction as some rare Discovery and this pregnant fruitful Distinction begot a Volume before it was half understood it self Had he but read the large Schemes for explaining Qua or Quatenus in others its like it would have either begot a larger Volume or by informing or confounding him have prevented this First he disowneth the Reduplicative sence and then owneth the specificative But 1. He seeth not it seems the insufficiency of this distinction 2. Nor the meaning of it 3. Nor could well apply it to the subject in hand Of the first I shall speak anon The second appeareth by his Description his Instance and his Application He describeth it to be When there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition 1. And why may it not be added also to the Predicate as well as it may Reduplicatively as Motus est actus mobilis quatenus est mobile 2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not serve for your specificative Quatenus The instance you give is as when we say man as a Reasonable creature faileth This was but an unhappy Translation of Homo quatenus animal est sensibilis and it s true in the Latine how false soever in the English For the Application 1. You say you Believe its thus taken As if you did but Believe and not know your own meaning in the Basis of your Exercitation 2. Your Specificative Quatenus is Causal or signifieth the Reason of the thing either of the Predication or the thing predicate But so cannot your Basis hold good For faith doth not look on Christ as a Saviour as you please Metaphorically to speak because it Justifieth for its Nature is before the effect and therefore cannot the effect be given as the cause of it unless it were the final cause of which anon Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common use signifieth the proper reason of the thing or predication and is appliable only to that which is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to the terms sometimes there is a Reduplication of the same term sometimes that reduplication is of the matter but in other terms as in a definition or synominal words or it is implyed sometimes it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Reduplicate sometimes it is without a Reduplication And then sometimes it giveth a Reason from an Essential Part sometime from the Generical Nature sometime from the Specifick Nature sometime from an Accident and those are divers sometime from a Quality sometime from Quantity sometime from Relation and that is multifarious If we should run into all the sences of this Term which Mr. W. doth lap up in the word Specificative the words might exceed the profit And it s to be noted that usually the term is respective as to some other thing excluded which is contradistinct so we give sometimes a more Remote and General sometime a neerer and more special Reason by Qua or quatenus As if you mix a purging Electuary in your Drink I say that Purgeth quatenus medicated which is to exclude the Drink from being Purgative If I speak of the Electuary I may say that it purgeth quatenus Diagridiate to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative But if I speak of the Diagridium I may say that it Purgeth as having an Elective faculty c. to exclude other Reasons of its operation Now for the opening of the matter in hand let us try certain Propositions that may be supposed to be laid down concerning Faith 1. Faith as faith justifieth This is True taken laxely for the excluding of faith as a meer Physical act or meritorious c. but it is false strictly taken as signifying the formal or nearest reason So 2. Fades in Christum qua talis Justificat that is haec sides in specie is true taken Laxely and materially to exclude all other Faith q. d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul but faith in Christ as such that is the matter deputed to be the condition of Justification But it s false taken strictly deratione formali 3. So This faith as it is an Apprehension or Acceptance of Christ justifieth It s true Materialiter Remotius Laxly but false formaliter stricte de ratione proxima For this is the same in other terms with the second So 4. Faith justifieth as an Instrumental effitient cause of our Justification It s false in every tolerable sence So 5. Faith justifieth as an Instrument of receiving Christ It s true 1. taking the word Instrument Metaphorically and meaning only the Nature of this faith which is to Believe in and Accept Christ 2. and taking Quatenus remotely laxely and materially only q.d. Faith is the Elected matter of the condition or is chosen to be the condition of Justification for this Aptitude as or because it is a Reception or Acceptance of Christ But it s false 1. Taking an Instrument strictly and Logically 2. and speaking de ratione formali So 6. Faith as a believing in Christs sacrifice justifieth It s true Laxly Materialiter partialiter that is This act of faith is part of the matter of the condition But it s false formaliter de ratione proxima So 7. Faith justifieth only as it is a Believing in Christs sacrifice or Righteousness It s false both de materia de ratione formali So 8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in or Accepting Christ as our Ransom Here is darkness and either nonsence or false doctrine 1. As Justifying signifieth either as a justifying efficient cause 2. Or as the merit or matter of our Righteousness 3. Or as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness of which Justification is a consequent and final cause In the first sense it is every way
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
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.
also of the objec as an offered good besides the understandings Assent to the Truth of the word which offereth it The former is by the Apostle oft distinguished from Love and is said to work by Love as the lively acts of the understanding produce answerable motions in the will But the later is that faith which justifieth to wit The Receiving of an offered Christ And this comprizeth both the Act of the Understanding and Will as almost all Protestant Divines affirm But both these acts together are called Faith from the former which is most strictly so called because the great difficulty then lay in Believing the Truth of the Gospel and would do still if it were not for the advantages of Credit Education Custom c. therefore the whole work is thence denominated though yet the compleating of the work be in the Will and the Understandings Act but preparatory thereto 2. You must also distinguish between Love to Christ the Mediator and the Grace of Charity in general as it is extended al so to God as Creator to Saints to all men c. And between that first act of Love which is in our first receiving of Christ and the love which we afterwards exercise on him and so I answer you 1. That as the Apostle distinguisheth between Faith Hope and Love So do I. 2. Faith taken strictly for assent to Divine Testimony produceth love in every one of the forementioned senses of the word Love 3. Justifying faith comprizing the wills acceptance produceth both the grace of Charity as it is exercised on other objects and also the following acts of it towards Christ the Mediator And so I acknowledge that Faith worketh by Love and that Love is not faith But yet whether Love be not in some sense essential to justifying faith if you speak only of Love to Christ and that not as a distinct grace but as it is comprized in our Acceptance of him at first I shall leave to your consideration when you have first resolved these things 1. Whether justifying faith be not an act of the Will as well as the Understanding Few but Papists deny it and not all of them 2. Whether Christ himself be not the object of it Few Protestants will deny it 3. Whether Good be not the object of the Will and so Christ be not willed as Good None doubts of it 4. Whether this willing be not the same as Loving as love is found in the rational appetite Sure Aquinas saith so no man that I know contradicting it 5. Whether you can call Affiance or any other act of the will justifying faith excluding this willing or not principally including it For 1. This is the Wills first act towards it object and will you say that Love goes before justifying faith and so before Justification and such a Love as is distinct from justifying faith as being no part of it How then is Love the fruit of faith and as Divines say a consequent of Justification Yet it is beyond all doubt that this Velle or Love to Christ goes before Affiance on him or any other act of the Will vide Aquin. 1.2 Q. 23. a. 33. Et. 1. Q. 20. a. 1 Et Tolet de anima l. 3. cap. 9. Q. â—7 28 Et Ames contra Gravinchou pag. 16. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding assent and subsequent Affiance in Christ should be conditions of our Justification and yet the Velle Christum oblatum that Willing which we call Consent Election or Acceptance which goeth between assent and Affiance should be excluded as no part of this condition 3. Especially considering that Affiance contains divers acts whereof one is of the Irascible of the sensitive and so is but an imperate act of the Will and less noble then that elicite Act which I plead for as well as Posterior to it and if Aquin. be not out in his Philosophy when he so oft saith that fiducia is spes roborata then our Divines make Hope to justifie Yet for all this I have not espoused this saying that Love to Christ is Essential to justifying faith nor will contend with any man that thinks it unmeet if we agree in the things of moment I hate to quarrel about words Nor do I think it a meet phrase to say we are justified by Love though in the sense before mentioned I think it true because it is but a part or affection as it were of that reception by which we are justified and stands not in so full a relation to the object received And yet if I had said none of all this I see not that I need any more then to deny your consequence as being wholly ungrounded For it followeth not that if it be an essential part that therefore it must have the Denomination of the whole yea though the whole be said to work by that part The Brain and Heart are essential parts of the Body and yet not to be called the Body and it is more proper to say that the body works by the Brain or Heart or that the vegetative soul doth work by the natural heat and Spirits then to say the Body worketh by the Body or the vegetative soul by it self I will explain all together in my usual Similitude which is Dr. Prestons or rather Pauls A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon and also to be made a Queen if she will but take the Prince for her Husband Now here put your Questions 1. Is Love any part of the Condition of her Pardon and Dignity Answer Yes An essential part for Consent is of the Essence of it and Love is essential to true consent to receive any offered good Not love as it is a Passion but as it is an act of the rational Appetite which is but Velle And Eligere Consentire Acceptare are nothing else but a respective Willing 2. But it is not Love as a Vertue in general or as exercised on any other object which is this essential part of the Condition but only love to him whom she marrieth And so her first love is necessary to her Pardon and Dignity as begun and her continued love and marriage-faithfulness is necessary to them as they are to be continued supposing the Prince to know the heart as Christ doth Qu. 2. Is it then a meet phrase to say that she is pardoned and dignified by loving such a Prince Answ It hath some Truth in it but it is not a fit speech but rather that it is by marrying him because Love is but a part or as it were an Affection of that Marriage Covenant or consent which indeed doth dignifie her Love may be without marriage but not Marriage cordially without Love So in our present case justifying faith is the very Marriage Consent or Covenant with Christ It is therfore fitter to say we are justified by it then by love because the former expresseth the full condition the latter not Qu. 3. If love be an essential part of the
Marriage-consent then may we not as well say Marriage causeth Marriage as to say Marriage causeth Love Answer No. For 1. That Love which it causeth is the following acts of Love 2. And the name of Love is most usually given only to the Passion which is in the sensitive but not usually to the meer Velle the elicite act of the rational appetite I have been the more prolix on this because it serves also for answer to other of your Objections especially the third 2. You object Gospel-Precepts are many if not all the same with the moral Law if justified then by obedience to them are we not justified by the works of the Law c. Answer 1. James yields the whole 2. If you speak of our Justification at first by which of guilty and lyable to condemnation we become recti in curia or are acquit I then yield all that you seek here viz. that we are not justified by works 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned mistake of my meaning as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works 4. We are not justified by works of the Law if you mean the Law of works or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt which are the works that Paul speaks of 5. That which you call the moral Law viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue taken Division without the sanction viz the Promise or the Commination is not the Law but one part of the Law and the other part viz. the sanction adjoined if diversified makes it two distinct Laws though the Duty commanded be the same The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam is not the same with that which should command a sick man to drink some for a cure 6. That our Justification is continued on condition of our sincere obedience added to our faith I maintain with James 7. Will you answer your own objection and you tell me what to answer Faith is a duty of the moral Law if we are justified by faith then we are justified by a work of the Law I know you will not evade as those that say Faith is not a work but a Passion nor as those that say we are justified by it not as a work but as an Instrument for I have heard you disclaim that If you say it is not as a work but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end then you say as I do both of faith and secondarily of works For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation or of the final Justification or of our present Justification as continued vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam recaptam as Conr. Bergius saith I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured on but lately an acute Disputant with me maintains that faith is not conditio moralis vel ex voluntate constituentis but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei But I think I shall easily and quickly disprove this opinion Rababs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace and not of the old Law of works In a word As there is a two fold Law so there is a two fold Accusation and Justification when we are accused as breakers of the Law of works that is as sinners in common sort and so as lyable to the penalty thereof then we plead only Christs satisfaction as our Righteousnes and no work of our own But when we are Accused of final non-performance of the conditions of the New Law that is of being Rejectors of Christ the Mediator we are justified by producing our faith and sincere obedience to him The former Paul speaks of and James of the latter You may see Divines of great Name saying as I in this as Mead Deodate on James the 2. but most fully Placaus in Thes Salmuriens Thes de Justific c. To your third Objection That Faith Repentance Hope and Love as before explained are distinguished I easily yield you But where you say Faith and Love have different Objects therefore one is no essential part of the other I answer That faith in Christ and Love to the Saints which your Texts mention have different Objects I soon confess But faith in Christ as it is the first Act of the Will and love to Christ have one and the same Object beyond all doubt Your fourth I wholly yield if you speak of faith strictly or as it Justifieth and not in a large improper sence Your fifth is grounded on the forementioned mistake of my meaning And there needs no further answer but only to tell you that though sincere obedience to all Christs Lawes be a part of the condition of our Justification as continued and consummate at Judgement yet it follows not that every particular duty must be done no more then that Adam must obey every particular Law before he were actually just It is sufficient that there be no other defect in our Obedience but what may stand with sincerity The same Precept may command or make Duty to one and not to another and so be no Precept as to him A man that lives but an hour after his conversion is bound sincerely to obey Christ according to his Law but he is not bound to build Churches nor to do the work of twenty years Christ may be received as King and is in the same moment in which he is received as Justifier and in that reception we covenant to obey him and take him for our Lord to the death but not to obey him on earth when we are dead for we are then freed from these Lawes and come under the Lawes of the Glorified To your sixth I answer The Texts alledged have no shew of contradicting the Point you oppos se One saith we are justified by his Blood But doth it thence follow therefore not by Believing in him or receiving him as King are we made partakers of it His Blood is the Purchasing cause but we enquire after the condition on our part The other Text saith through faith in his Blood But 1. it saith not only in his Blood 2. And his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of his Justifying us for by his blood he bought all into his own hands For to this end he Died Rose and Revived that he might be Lord of Dead and Living Rom. 14.9 It may be therefore through faith in his Blood as the chief part of the satisfaction and yet necessarily also through faith in himself or the Reception of himself as the Christ 3. Yet doth the Apostle most conveniently say through faith in his blood rather then through faith in his Dominion or Government because when he speaks of Faith he speaks Relatively not as some understand it by Faith meaning Christ but using the name of that Act which fitliest and fulliest relates to its Object and so intending the Object more
voca notatur certa absoluta persuasio de bono futuro sed quâ significat Electionem Apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei mediâ— ac in qou persausio expectatio talis fundatur Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia potentia Amicis ac opibus suis Psal 78.22 If therefore you understand by Affiance many Acts of which velle Christum oblatum called Acceptation quia volumus objectum ut oblatum and Election quia volumus medium hâ—s rejectis aliis or Consent quia volumnus ex alterius Promotione qui prius voluiâ— is the first and chief of those of the Will as Amesius doth then I am of your mind If you say that Velle vel Acceptare is not credere vel fidem babere in the common notation of the word I answer 1. It includes Velle as its principal Act in the common use of the word when its object is an Incompelx term but indeed it includeth more also 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affection we say but Will much more 3. I answer in the words of Amesius Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 2 3 Credere vulgo significat actum intellectus Assensum testimonio praebentis sed quoniam consequenter volunt as moveri solet extendere sese ad amplectenduÌ„ bonum it a probatum ideirco fides â—tiam hunc Voluntatis actum designat satis aptè quomodo hoc in loco necessario intelligitur Est enim receptio bond sub ratione boni intima unio cum codeÌ„ John 1.12 Hinc fides fertur in bonum qoud per istam fit nostrum est actus Electionis est actus Totius hominis qua actui Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt John 6.35 Yea further I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in sincerity there is Justification certainly consequent but the term Affiance contains some acts which Divines say do only follow Justification which also Amesi seems to acknowledge ibid. § 21. Quod vero fiducia dicitur fructus fidei verum est de fiducia prout respicit Deum in futurum est spes fâ—rma sed prout respicit Deum in Christo in praesentia se offerentem est ipsa fides Yea the same Amesius tells us Medul lib 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divina viz. 1. Notitia rei à Deo testatae 2. â—ffectio pia erga Deum quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius Testimonium 3. Assersus qui praebetur veritati test atae propter hanc affectionem erga Deum qui est ejus testis 4. Aquiescentia in Deum ad illud quod propâ—nitur consequendum 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius quae in Testimonio nobis exhibetur So that even this faith hath many acts Yea and he adds Primum horum est in intellectu sed non constituit fidem c. secundum quartum quintum sunt in voluntate constituunt fidem prout est virtus actus religionis Tâ—rtium viz. assensus est in intellectu sed prout movetur à voluntate neque est proprie fidei virtus sâ—d effectum So that this Doctrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very will 2. and makes the intellectual acts even assent to be but an effect of faith and not the vertue is far from yours though I scruple not to take in assent with the rest for all it is in the Intellect and if these be all in that faith which is a holy vertue much more must that which justifies contain as much And indeed to place justifying faith only in the intellect is somewhat strange for those that make it the principal Grace when Philosophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue For in the understanding are only intellectual Habits but moral vertues are all placed in the Will or sensitive appetite for that quarrel I will pass by whether they be only in the sensitive as Burgersâ—icius c. If any therefore wonder that I place faith in so many acts and yet make one the chief compleative Act I have yet further this most accurate Divine saying the very same as I. Perfectio autom fidei est in Electione aut apprehensione illa qua bonum Propositum fit nostrum Hinc fidei natura â—ptimè explicatur in Scriptura cum fideles diâ—untur adhaererâ— Dâ—o Jos 23.6 Act. 11.23 viâ—â— veritatis â—ligere Psal 119.30 31. Where you see also that by Affiance and Adhaesion Amesius principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is And indeed he that observeth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans salvation or damnation on his Will mainly so far as it may be said to depend on our own acts rather then on any acts of the understanding but only as they refer and lead to those of the Will might well wonder that justifying saving faith the great needfull act should be only intellectual and not chiefly in or by the Will as well as all the rest Ye will not come to me that ye may have life How oft would I and ye would not These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them c. Whoever will let him take or buy freely c. Still almost all is laid on the Will and yet is not Faith in the Will Assent may be compelled by evidence of Truth and so be unvoluntary And so a man may be a Believer thus against his Will and if this will serve men may be saved against their Wills I know some think it enough that the Will commands the understanding to believe But even thus saith Amesius Medul l. 2. c. they place the first principle in the Will Qui fidem collocant iu intellectu necessariam tamen fatentur esse aliquam motionâ—â— volâ—ntatis ad assensum illum praebendum quemadmodum iâ— fide humana voluntarium esse dicitur adhibere fidem alicui si vero à voluntate pendâ—at fides necesse est ut primuÌ„ principium fidei sit in voluntate â— 20 But this is only commanding the performance so it is thus no elicit act for Aquinas and others conclude that Voluntas est Principium determinans actus humanos quo ad exercitium actus intellectus autem quo ad actus specificationem But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Act that I assert And as I said this imperium voluntatis may possibly be wanting and belief be involuntary for the main Let me add but one more consideration for I perceive my tediousness If Infidelity as it is a Privation of saving faith and so is the condemning sin be in the Will as well as in the Intellect then faith must be in the Will too But Infidelity is in both Ergo. c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer assent is rather said to be willing then in the Will but that which is opposite to justifying faith is in the Will
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
his Word or himself as true therefore he must be Received by the Will as well as the Understanding for Goodness is the object of the Will Here you answer 1. by confessing that Faith is called a Receiving of Christ 2. by interpreting that speech He is Received by the receiving his Word which is received by Assent This is worth a fuller enquiry because the discovery of the proper Object of Faith will shew the proper Act. The Intellectual Act Assent hath for its Objectum formale the Veracity of God or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Testifying This is not it that we enquire after The material Object for we must use the Schools termes in this distinction though perhaps fitter might be found is 1. Proximius that is the moral Verity of the Testimony or Word 2. Vlterius the Metaphysical Verity of the Things signified as Christs Person God-head Incarnation Resurrection c. The former is but the means to the latter and for its sake and not for its self In regard of this act of Assent you may say as you do that Christ is Received by receiving his Word because the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded But then 1. These are yet two distinct Acts as the Objects are distinct 2. And this Intellectual Act is called a Receiving of the Truth Believed but imperfectly because it leads to that Act of the Will which in morality is more fitly and fully called a Receiving and therefore if Assent produce not that Acceptation or consent of the Will it cannot fitly it self be called a Receiving of Christ For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Species I suppose we neither of us speak The material Object of Justifying faith as it is in the Will is 1. Principal and Adaequate which is Christ himself 2. Subservient or Instrumental which is the Covenant Promise or testamentary Gift in by which Christ is offered and Given These are two distinct Acts as the Accepting of a Testament and of the Legacy of a Pardon written and the real Pardon thereby signified or of the Oath of Allegiance and of the Prince to whom we swear But because of the Relation between the one and the other Faith may be called a receiving of Christ or a receiving of the Gospel Yet so as still the proper principal Object is Christ and the Gospel but â—ediate as to him These are my thoughts Now if I am able to understand you your words import that in your Judgement Christ is received two wayes 1. by Faith and that is only by Assent and this is only by receiving his Word that is in Believing it to be True 2. By other Graces and those I think you refer to the Wills receiving Against this opinion I further alledge 1. Almost all Protestant Divines acknowledge faith to be the Act or rather Acts of both faculties even Dr. Downame not excepted and Caâ—â—ro himself speaks sometime darkly insomuch that Melancthon Joan Crâ—cius and many more make it the judgement of Protestants in opposition to Popery And so doth Amesius in Bellarm. Enerv. though he judge it as Camero not accurate in Mâ—dul l. 1. c. 3. sect 22. Yea he that though it must be but in one faculty chooseth to place it only in the Will and excludes Assent as being called faith quia parit fidem Excellent Davenant saith Insactu fidei justifit antis Totu Anima se convertit ad causam justificantem Determin Q. 38. pag. 174. And again Fides illa quam scriptura justificantem agnoscit habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis Intellectus Determin Q. 37. pag. 166 Again 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 ibidem Again Quod Philosophantur Voluntatem Intellectum esse duas potentias reipsa distinctas dogma philosophicum est ab omnibus haud receptum Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentum minime idoneum Idem ibid. 2. Assent is not any full moral Receiving of Christ But faith which Justifieth is a full moral Receiving of Christ Job 1.12 therefore Assent alone is not the faith that justifieth I know there is a Metonymie in the word Receive because in strict speech in Physicks Recipere est pati But it is so usual and near that in morality it is taken for a proper speech to call the Acceptation of an offered good A Receiving 3. There is such a thing as the proper accepting of Christ required as of flat necessity to Justification and Salvation But this acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other Grace therefore it is taken for an Act of faith The Maj. I hope no Christian will deny For when Christ is offered to the world as their Saviour Redeemer Teacher King-Husband who can think that the accepting of him is not required yea even in the offer Not a physical Reception which some absurdly and dangerously dream of but a moral as when a people take a man for their King or Teacher or a woman takes a man for her Husband And for the Minor Receiving Christ offered is not usually expressed in the term Hope Joy Charity Repentance therefore it is included in the word Faith unless you can name some other Grace which it is usually expressed by 4. The Grace by which we are united to Christ is Faith But it is receiving Christ by which we are so united to him therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Christ I suppose none will deny that it is Christ himself that we must be united to by believing and not the Word or Promise and that it is receiving Christ which unites us to him is obvious both from the language of Scripture and the nature of the thing A People is united to their Prince as the head of the Republique and a Church to their Teacher and a woman to her Husband by the Wills consent or acceptance and not properly but only initially preparatorily imperfectly and improperly and if it be alone not at all by believing the Truth of their words Amesius saith Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 18 Fides etiam cum sit primus actus vitae nostrae qua Deo in Christo vivimus consistat necesse est in unione cum Deo quam nullo modo facere potest Assensus adhibitus veritati quae est de Deo 5. By faith it is that we give up our selves to be Christs Disciples Subjects Members For Scripture ascribes not this to other Graces usually or chiefly And to take him for our Saviour and Head and give up our selves as his redeemed and Members is all one work But it is not by Assent only chiefly or fully at all that we give up our selves to Christ as Disciples Members c. Therefore
it is not by Assent properly or fully that we receive Christ So Amesius ubi supra § 19. Crediturus etiam porro cum ex miseriae sensu omnimoâ—ae liberationis cum in se tum in aliis defectu necesse habeat se dedere Deo in Christo tanquam Servatori sufficienti fideli Deditionem istam facere non potest ullo modo per Assensum Intellectus sed per Consensum Voluntatis And indeed I think this Dedition or self-delivery to be part of Faith and that the covenanting in heart with God in Christ is the very justifying faith taking him for ours and giving up our selves to him as his and the external Covenanting is the profession of Faith and that Baptism is the marriage-solemnization and engaging sign and means 6. That Act which cannot be discerned in a Saint in it self from what may be in the wicked is not the receiving of Christ fully or properly which justifies But the Act of Assent to the Truth of the Gospel as it is in a Saint cannot in it self be discerned from what may be in the wicked Therefore the Act of Assent is not the Receiving of Christ which justifies The Major is hence evident In that justifying faith being the condition of our Justification must needs be the great Mark to know by whether we are justified or no But if it could not be known to be sincere it self in vain is it made a Mark to know our state by yea or a Condition almost when a man can never tell when he performeth it The Minor I have endeavoured to prove in an Additional Chap. to the third part of my Book of Rest to which for brevity I refer you Dr. Stoughton I have there shewed you saith as I Aâ—esius saith Medul l. 1. c. ◠§ 4. quaÌ„vis fides praesuppmat semper notitiaÌ„ Evangelii nulla tamen datur in quoquaÌ„ cognitio salutifera ab illa quo in quibusdam non salvandis reperitur diversa nifâ— consequenter ad actum istuÌ„ voluntatis ab ipso dependens Job 7.17 and 8.31.32 1 John 2.3 I doubt not but in the Intensness of Degree there is a difference between the Intellectual acts as Knowledge and Assent in a Saint and a wicked man but if any think that they are in themselves discernable I would he would tell me one Mark of the difference In their different Effects on the Will I know they are discernable 7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith and receiving of Christ doth make him ours and so justifie then you must acknowledge that other Graces justifie as well as faith yea not secondarily only but as Principally as Faith But that you will be loth to do The consequence will not be avoided but by shewing that there is a twofold receiving of Christ and that one justifieth and the other not which when you have proved from Scripture I will yield but then at least I shall gain this that receiving Christ justifies not properly ex natura actus sed ex voluntate Ordinantis and if I get that I get the main part of the cause in controversie 8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Act of the Will But Affiance is judged by the same Divines to be the justifying Act Therefore they judge that the justifying Act and consequently the Reception of Christ belongs to the Will 9. The Velle or Elicite act of the Will which I insist on is the very first Act and goes before Affiance as it denotes any other Act of the Will Therefore either this Velle must be the justifying Faith and Reception of Christ or else they must say that there is a saving reception of Christ that goes before the justifying or Reception which sure they will not grant that make that Faith the actus primas vitae spiritualis 10. Lastly The opinion seems to me so Improbable without and against reason and so dangerous that God doth assign one only Act of the soul to the Office of justifying especially the act of assent that I dare not entertain it without proof It is improbable that in a Moral Political Theological Matter the Holy Ghost should speak as if it were in the strictest discourse of Physicks It is improbable that God should speak to man in such a Moral discourse so as no men use to speak and therefore so as men could not without a further explication understand Doth he that speaks of receiving a man to be our Husband King Master c. mean it of one only Act though I know Consent is the chief Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of such Receiving Doth he mean that any one single Act is that Condition Much less Assent Or is there any likelyhood that when other Acts do receive the same Object Christ in a way of as high honouring him that yet God should confine Justification to one Act setting by all the rest Yea when the rest are acknowledged to be part of the Condition and Receiving as Lord to be the fides quae I know God is not bound to give man a Reason of his Laws but yet he usually doth it and we must take heed of asserting that to be Gods Law which appears unreasonable till we can prove what we say Yea what a dangerous loss will Christians then be at who will hardly ever be able to find out this single Act what it is and when they have it And he that knows how quick Spirits are in their actings and withall how little able we are to observe and discern them perhaps many doubt whether you can find a name for any single act of a soul or know when it is one Act and when many In the forementioned Instance A woman is condemned for Treason the Prince writeth to her that he hath dearly paid her Ransom will not only deliver her but also make her his Queen if she will Believe this and Receive him accordingly If now the Lawyers should dispute the case what single act it was that she was Delivered and Dignified by whether an act of the Intellect only or of the Will only whether Assent only or Affiance Yea whether agendo vel patiendo as many here do would not men think that learning made them dote And I would entreat you to consider whether it were Gods Design in the Gospel to advance any one Act of mans soul above the rest and so to honour it or rather to advance the Lord Jesus whom faith Receiveth as Mr. Gataker tels Salâ—marsh Many speak dangerously in over-magnifying their own faith when they should magnifie Christ whom it relates to I know the great thing that sticks with some is that the Scripture oft seems to describe faith by the Act of Assenting But consider so it doth in other places by Trusting Resting Taking Receiving Coming Eating and Drinking which Metaphors must needs signifie acts of the Will c. which shew that it is not any single
Act. Again as I said the whole is denominated from the first leading and most difficult Act the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the persons to whom it was spoken Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Messias or Mediator must be Received Welcomed Honoured Loved submitted to but they could not Believe that Christ was he And this was foolishness to the Gentiles also as well as a stumbling-block to the Jews that one that lived and walked among them and seemed a poor contemptible man and at last was crucified should be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world I tremble sometimes to think if we had lived our selves in those times how hard it would have been even to us to believe so that when the great Difficult act is named the other Consent and Affiance are still implyed and included I will end with Amesius true observation to this purpose Medul l. 1. c. 3. Quamvis in scripturis aliquando Ascensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Christi vel per Assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam Joh. 11.25 26 27. § 20. The second Argument which you answer lyeth thus If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart then it is not only in the Understanding but in the Will also But the former is the words of Scripture Act. 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Ergo c. Here you answer that the whole heart notes not every inward faculty but as often sincerity To which I Reply 1. The word whole I yield to Illyricus signifies the sincerity which is usually expressed by Integrity but the word Heart signifies the subject and is commonly taken for the Will and oft for the whole soul Vnderstanding and Will as most Fathers Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point though the two former placed too much of it in the Assent but where and how oft do you find the word Heart used for the sole Intellect I pray shew the place 2. The proverbial speech with all the Heart is not used in Rom. 10.10 but only subject barely expressed with the Heart man believeth to Righteousness My third Argument as you place it was to another use which is of less moment As I judge Faith to be taken 1. sometimes more strictly for meer Assent to a Testimony so James takes it when he saith the Devils believe 2. And sometimes more fully for Assent and Acceptance or Consent so Paul takes it and so it Justifieth So 3. I suppose it is sometime taken most largely and improperly for the full performance of the conditions of the New Covenant If any deny this I have no mind to contend for it because it is but about a word and not the thing Your answer is twofold 1. that Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeying Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ I Reply That Obedience which containeth the Condition of salvation by Christ whereof Justification is a part must needs include Faith But the word Obedience Heb. 5 9 containeth the condition of salvation by Christ therefore it includes faith He is become the Author of Eternal salvation to all them that obey him Your second answer is It may be obedience by Assent that Christ is the Messiah died rose c. Repl. 1. If Obedience of meer Assent be not made the condition of Eternal salvation in Scripture then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned But the former is true therefore the latter 2. The first Assent to these Gospel Truths is not in a full proper sence called Obedience to Christ at all therefore not here to be so understood As subjection so obedience is a term of Relation on supposing the Authority of a Superior the acknowledgement of that Authority A command from that Superior and that the action be therefore done because so commanded Now the first Assent to or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Office and Soveraignty must needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a Soveraign I confess improperly a man may be said to obey when he yields to the Reason and perswasion of another but this wants the very form of obedience properly so called If it be true that the first Acceptance of Christ for our Soveraign as Redeemer by the Wills consent may be both the Reception of him for King and Obedience to him Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception first though in time it is both at once But the first Assent to Christs Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign And for the understanding the Text when I find Christ give the world a systeme of Precepts and tell them that he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him I dare not without Reason restrain that obedience in the sence of it to some one or two acts Especially when I find that he hath made the like promise on condition of other acts of ours besides Believing as in many Text I have shewed in those Aphor Take my yoke and burden c. Learn of me to be meek and lowly c. and I will ease you and ye shall find rest Forgive and ye shall be forgiven He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy with multitudes of the like And Rom. 10. that is called Faith ver 14 17. which is called obeying the Gospel ver 16. And if the Gospel do as directly and urgently command Consent as Assent yea if it command love to Christ as of equal necessity with both I have reason to think that in this large sence Faith includes it Why should obeying the Gospel and obeying the Truth be made Synonima's with Believing as it is one single Act when the Gospel commands many other Acts as of aequal necessity and excellency Let me argue thus ex concessis from your self and others Most Divines affirm that the proper Reason why Faith justifieth is its Relation to Christ because it is a Receiving of him it justifies Relative i.e. A Christ received Justifies but Mr. Tombâ—s confesseth that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith therefore other Graces justifie as well as Faith The Consequence is a Quatenus ad Omne What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import in their first signification is not to our business so much as in what sense they are commonly used No doubt they may signifie properly our yielding to perswasion improperly called Obeying but that they are put for proper Obeying usually in Scripture most Interpreters affirm You may therefore as well draw to your purpose the Latin Obedire because it is but quasi ob-audire Indeed the Obedience
to a Teacher as to Christ and his Ministers and of Scholars to their Master who useth both Argument and Authority is fully and fitly expressed in those words The word Gospel is principally spoken of the Doctrine of Good tidings or Mercy by Christ but sure not only of the Historical or Declaratory part but also yea principally of the Promise or Offer but the whole New Covenant or Law of Christ for so it is and so the Ancients unaminously call it containing Precepts and Threatnings also is called his Testament Covenant Gospel being so denominated from the more excellent part Heb. 7.18.19 22. The Testament of Jesus is opposed to the Commandments of the Law and called Better therefore it comprizeth Christs Commands proper to him And is it not Christs whole Law which is of force when he is dead and called his Testament Heb. 9.17 And when the Apostle saith They were made able Ministers of the New Testament doth he mean only of the History or the Precept of faith and not of Love Hope Repentance c. Let his preaching witness as the Expositors 2 Cor. 3.6 Or let Christ in giving them their Commission tell you what that New Testament is Mat. 28. Go Disciple all Nations c. teaching them to observe all things what ever I command And not to strive about words you know that New Law of Christ which is called his Testament Covenant Gospels c. hath all the Precepts in it which you mention Is it not Precepts as well as Narrations which Mark calls the Gospel Mar. 1.1 Was it not the Gospel which Christ and the Apostles preached And they preached Repentance and Faith and so commanded Duty If a man loose his Life for publishing or obeying Christs Precepts doth not the Promise belong to him Mar. 8.35 and 10 29 Or is that Promise to them only that suffer for the Declarative part only Is the Gospel that must be published among all Nations the History only Mar. 13.10 Was the Precept of Accepting Christ loving him in sincerity and obeying him c. no part of that Gospel to which Paul was separated Rom. 1.1 in which he served in Spirit ver 9. of which he was not ashamed ver 16. and which he was put in trust With 1 Thess 2.2 4. Was it only the Declaration of Christs Death Resurrection c. which is the Gospel according to which mens secrets must be judged Rom. 2.16 or according to which the Jews are enemies Rom. 11.28 compared with Luk. 19.27 Is not it larglyer taken 2 Cor. 8.18 And subjection to the Gospel implies it preceptive 2 Cor. 9.13 Peters withdrawing and separating from the uncircumcision and fearing the Jews and dissembling and Barnabas with him was A not walking according to the Truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.14 The false Apostles preached another Gospel and the Galathians turned to another Gospel when the former preached and the later received the Doctrine of the Necessity of being circumcised and keeping Moses Law Gal. 1.6 7. so that the word Testament and Gospel includes Laws or Precepts of Duty 4. To that of the sense of Gal. 3.12.23 about the largest extent of the word Faith it being as I said of so small moment I intend not to insist on it My meaning is but this that some other Graces are intended reductively and the chief named for all But by your answer I understand 1. That you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant which concession shall satisfie me what ever you think of the sense of the Word of these Texts 2. but the rest of your Ans I am unsatisfied in You say by Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justificaiion in this Life is fulfilled not concerning every benefit of the New Covenant Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins forgiveing others doing good to the Saints of entering into Life Repl. 1. You know that not Wotton and many great Divines of England only but of the most famous Transmarine do take Justification and Remission to be one and the same thing I have received Animadversions from divers learned Divines lately on these Aphorisms and three or four of them blame me for making any difference between Justification and Remission though I make as little as may be And can you think then that Remission and Justification have several conditions If they are not wholly the same yet doubtless the difference is exceeding small and rather notional then real The same Commination of the Law doth both condemn and oblige to punishment Remission is a discharge from the Obligation to Punishment and Justification is a discharge from the condemnation So much then as that Obligation to Punishment differs from the Laws condemnation which is nothing or so little as it is not obvious to be discerned so much doth Remission differ from Justification Yea even those Divines that in pleading for the interest of the active Righteousness to Justification do to that end make Justification to have two parts yet one of them they say is Remission of sin as the other is the Imputation of Righteousness And I pray how then can these two parts of the same Justification have two divers conditions so as one is appropriated to one and excluded from the other I remember no reformed Divines but they either make Justification and Remission to be all one or Remission to be part of Justification or else to be two Relations or other effects immediately and at once in order of time if not of nature resulting or proceeding from the same foundation materially or other cause Though Gataker and Bradshaw make them to differ it is but in this narrow and almost unconceivable way but in time to concur I must therfore differ from you in this that they have divers conditions and wait for your proof of it But it seems you will give us leave to say A man is not pardoned by faith only And yet he is justified by faith only and that as a condition Faith then it seems can do the whole but not one half as some judge or can do and not do the same thing as others 2. But do you think that Repentance is not necessarily Antecedent to Justification as well as to Remission If you say No the current of the Gospel Doctrine will confute you which usually putteth Repentance before Faith and those Divines that say it followeth after it do yet make them concur in order of time But if Repentance do necessarily precede Justification as I doubt not but you will yield then let me know to what purpose or under what notion or respect if not as a Condition Can you find any lower place to give it 3. But if you should mean that Faith and Repentance are the condition of our first Justification and Remission but afterwards only of our Remission I Answer 1. According to your Judgement who take Justification to be one act transient once only performed and
to prove that by Dispositions and Preparations The Council mean Merits and that they would subdolously introduce the Thing Merita de congruo by changing the name as out of Osius words and others he gatherâ— 2. And know you not that Chemnitius prosesseth to yield to the soundness of that very sixth Chapter which you alledge were it not for these guiles that they use and their evil sense to advance Merit For saith he Omnino certus est sive modus sive ordo in vâ—rbo Dei nobis designatus prascriptus quo Deus utitur quando vult hominem ad Justificationem deducâ—re c. Et qui ad modum sive ordiâ—em illum divinitus prascriptum non volunt sâ— ductu spiritus accommodare sâ—d negligunt conculcant illum bi ad Justificationem non proveniunt Vult enim Deus à Nâ—titia Assensu verbi sui nos ordiri ante Justificationem oportet praecedere contritionem hoc est seriam agnitionem peccatorum pavores conscientiae agnoscentio iram Dei adversus nostra peccatâ— dolentis propter peocatum in qua contritione non retinetur sed abjicitur prapositum persâ—verandi pergendi in sceleribus Ad hos vere terrores necesse est accâ—dâ—râ— fidem que agnitione fiducia misericordia Dei promissa propter silium med atorâ—m rursui erigat consoletur animum ne oppressi desperatione ruamus in aeternum exitium Sed fides accedat ad Deum quaerat defideret petat apprahendat accipiat Remissionem peccatorum Et hoc modo seâ— ordine in vâ—rbo Dâ—i designatâ— viaâ— pâ—rari Domino ut in ipso per propteripsum fide consequamur accipiamus Justificationem ipsa scriptura tradit c. this also he shews Luther approved of Now I pray you tell me whether here be not full as much as Dr. Ward or I say And do you think Ghemnitius did join with the Papists of Trent when he confuted them 3. And if Dr. W. had spoak of Sanctification are there not multitudes of our own best approved Divines that make all these acts to be found in men by way of preparation before Sanctification Mr. Rogers of Dedham in his Treat of faith Mr. Hooker in his Epist before that book and ost in his own book affirmeth not only a common preparatory contrition Hungring and thirsting Hope Love Joy but even effectual special Vocation it self and so faith to go before Sanctification and Justification And indeed what man denyeth it except Mr. Pemble and a very few that with him make Sanctification and Vocation to be all one which how far I approve my self I have shewed in Trâ—at of Rest Part. 1 Chap. 8. sect 2.3.4 4. But look into the words and find out what error you can Which of those acts do you think goes not before Justification And if they go before sure you will not deny but they do some way or other dispose or fit a man for pardon or else God would not have prescribed them before it 1. Catholick faith is the Belief of the Catholick Doctrine I am sure you take that to go before Justification 2. If Hope of pardon go not before then Affiance to which Hope is essential goes not before Yea then Believers do despair in the Act of Believing to Justification 3. I never knew the man that doubted whether fear of Punishment went before 4. The same I may say of grief for sin 5. And if all the doubt be of Purpose against sin and for Amendment 1. Sure they that say Repentance is pre-requisite to justification will not exclude a Purpose of Amendment 2. And sure those that say Sanctification and Vocation are all one and go before Justification will hardly exclude it 3. They that take a turning from Idols to the true God as the end to be in order before a Turning from Infidelity to the Mediator as the way which is by Faith these must needs think that so much of Actual Amendment goes before Justification ye believe in God believe also in me 4. They that say Faith alone justifieth but not the faith which is alone will surely include this Purpose as Antecedent Davenant Mr. Ball c. express it and insist on it Dr. Twiss calleth works Media causae dispositivae But it were endless to cite Authors in this Point 5. But I tell you my mind I take this Purpose of obeying Christ de futuro to be very Faith it self For faith is a Covenant reception of Christ and to take him for Christ and King-Redeemer and to Purpose yea Covenant to obey him are but one thing And therefore a Giving up our selves as Redeemed-subjects and so a purpose of being actually subject are faith it self And then they must needs be prerequisite to Justification So that whether you take these Acts for common or special suely they go before Justification as Dr. Ward saith Dare you tell any man of yout Hearers that though he have not so much as a Purpose to mend yet he is justified by Faith Truly such passages haue embittered the minds of Papists and many weak ones against our Doctrine of Justification and given great advantage to the Antinomists For what you say of contradicting Dr. Downamâ— and Mr. Pemble I answer 1. Though they differ between themselves in the point of Justification and one hath wrote a confutation of the others Doctrine yet you will never shew me wherein this speech of Dr. Ward doth contradict either of them Indeed if Dr. Ward had determined whether he meant common Dispositions or special perhaps he might have contradicted one of them they do so far differ themselves For you know Mr. Pemble not only in his Vindic. Grat. but even in the place you cite pag. 42.43 takes those Acts to be of special Grace or a part of Sanctification which most Divines do judge to be preparatory thereto And for my part I judge as Mr. Pemble if you take but that point in to qualifie it which I have asserted Treat of Rest second Edit part 3. cap. 11. that the sincerity of Grace as saving lyeth not in the bare nature of the Act but in the prevailing degree which Morality may specifie then I say as Mr. Pemble pag. 43. that these Vertues which are many of them by our Divines reckoned as Dispositions to Regeneration are if they be true the main parts and fruits of Regeneration 2. But I admire how you should think that speech of Dr. Wards should be a joining with the Papists against Dr. Downame and Mr. Pemble when Downame tells you that the Papists dispute of another subject then we do while they mean one thing by it viz Sanctification and we another upon which ground Mr. Wotton is ready to throw out the Dispute as being about one Term but different subjects And Mr. Pemble answers that the Argument of Bellarmine from that chapter of the Councils sixth sess is framed on the Error which puts out of frame the whole Dispute
by sentence in Judgement Thirdly The Execution of the former by actuall Liberation from penalty The last is oftener call'd Remission of sin the two former are more properly called Justification First As for the first of these I argue this If Christ do as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits Enact the Law of Grace or promise by which we are justified then doth he as King and Benefactor justifie us by Condonation or constitution For the Promise is his Instrument by which he doth it But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent As the Father by Right of Creation was Rector of the new created world and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by Right of Redemption is Rector of the new Redeemed world and so made the Law of Grace that gives Christ and Life to all that will believe As it is a Law it is the Act of a King As it is a Deed of Gift it is the Act of a Benefactor as it is founded in his death and supposeth his satisfaction thereby it is called his Testament In no respect is it part of his satisfaction or Humiliation or Merit itself but the true effect of it So that Christs merit is the Remote Moral Cause of our Justification but his granting of this promise or Act of Grace is the true natural efficient Instrumental Cause of our Justification even the Immediate Cause Secondly Justification by sentence of Judgement is undeniably by Christ as King For God hath appointed to Judge the World by him Act. 17.31 and hath committed all Judgement to him John 5.22 And therefore as Judge he doth justifie and Condemn This is not therefore any part of his Humiliation or Obedience by which he ransometh sinners from the Curse To deny these things is to deny Principles in Politicks Thirdly And then for the Execution of the sentence by actual liberation there is as little room for a doubt this being after both the former and the act of a Rector and not of a Surety in the form of a servant So that it is apparent that as the Merit of our Justification is by Christ in his Humiliation So our actual Justification in all three senses is by Christ as King And therefore Faith in order to Justification must accordingly respect him Secondly As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justifie but yet mediately he doth and it is but mediately that he justifieth by his Merits The Gospel is a Law that must be promulgate and expounded and a Doctrine that must be taught and pressed on sinners till they receive it and believe that they may be justified And this Christ doth as the Teacher of his Church And Faith must accordingly respect him Thirdly The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was part of his exaltation by Power and Conquest and not of his Humiliation and yet we are justified by his Resurrection as that which both shewed the perfection of his satisfaction by which he entred upon that state of Glory in which he was to apply the benefits Fourthly The Intercession of Christ is a part of his office as he is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck but it is no part of his Humiliation or Ransome And yet we are justified by his Intercession And therefore Faith must respct it for Justification Let us now hear what The Scripture saith in these cases Mattthew 9.6 But that you may know that the Son of man hath Power on earth to forgive sins c. Here it is plainly made an Act of Power and not of Humiliation to forgive sins Mat. 11.27 28 29. All things are delivered unto me of my Father c. Come to me all ye that are weary c. so Mat. 28.18 19. compared with Mark 16.15 16. shew that it is an act of Christ exalted or in Power to pardon or grant the promise of Grace John 1.12 To give power to men to become the Sons of God must be an act of Power John 5.22 23 24. it is express of the sentence Acts 5.31 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins He forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour Act. 10.42 43. he is preached as the Judge of quick and dead and so made the Object of the faith by which we have Remission of sins Rom. 4.25 Who was delivered for our offences and raised for our justification And this Resurrection as is said was part of his Exaltation And the Apostle thence concludes as is aforesaid that this is the faith that is Imputed to us for Righteousness If we believe in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead vers 26. Rom. 8.33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us Here God and the Resurrection and Session at Gods right hand and the intercession of Christ are all made the grounds or causes of our Justification and not only Christs death Yea it is exprest by it is Christ that died yea rather that is risen c. 1 Cor. 15.1 2.3 4. The faith by which Paul tells them they were saved had Christs Resurrection for its object as well as his dying for our sins Phil. 3.8.9 10. Pauls way of Justification was first to win Christ and be found in him and so to have a Righteousness of God by faith in Christ whole Christ and not that of the Law that he might know the power of his Resurrection c. The true Nature of this faith is described 1 Pet. 1.21 Who by him do believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him Glory that your Faith and Hope may be in God 1 Pet. 3.21 The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth now also save us by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who is gone into Heaven and is on the right hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject to him It is certain that the salvation of Baptism consisteth very much in Remission of sin or Justification In a word it is most evident in Scripture that merit and satisfaction are but the moral remote preparatory Causes of our Justification though exceeding eminent and must be the daily study and everlasting praise of the Saints and that the perfecting nearer efficient causes were by other acts of Christ and that all concurred to accomplish this work And therefore even ex parte Christi the work is done by his several acts though merited by him in his humiliation only And therefore it is past doubt on their own principles that faith must respect all in order to our Justification And the faith by which we are justified must be that of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 that believed with all
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
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