20. There is Ira Paterna Castigans as well as Ira Hostilis Exterminans Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are which you say I almost repeat I do not know I expressed mine own sence in mine own words and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger and say That there is no Hatred though there be Anger My chief design in those Animadversions was That in your Second Edition which you promised you might have occasion if not to confirm your Assertions yet to clear your Expressions I know you oppose their sence that so distinguish but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit if you say that you do not I am satisfied Your words were of Affliction as Affliction therefore of Affliction in general You say Aphor. p. 70. The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment c. But you confess now that you should have said Chastisement and so I have my desire in this Particular viz. your better expression God is not the Father of the Unregenerate though Elect in respect of Actual Adoption But you know that Ephes 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons c. God having loved such with an everlasting Love viz. Benevolentiae though not Complacentiae no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion viz. in order to their Conversion But you know I speak of Reprobates and that it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated Whether that import the Election of Jacob and the Reprobation of Esau I now dispute not but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect and his hatred of the Reprobate Deus omnes homines diligit inquit Aquinas etiam omnes Creaturas in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum non tamen quadcunque bonum vult omnibus In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna dicitur eos odio habere reprobare Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se suâ naturâ and so I think do they against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms but though Suffering as Suffering be evil yet as Sanctified it is not evil It is good for me that I was afflicted Psal 119. 71. Afflictions were then indeed to be loved if they were good of their own Nature but being only good as sanctified we are not simply to desire them but a sanctified use of them and in that respect to rejoice in them Jam. 1 2 3. Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus That which worketh for our good c. Where do I argue so Rather thus That which is sanctified to us doth work for our good and so though it be evil in it self yet it is good to us But Affliction is sanctified c. I am apt to oversee but neither I nor they I think whom you first opposed deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction if that were all you aimed at in your Question What I mean by Comformity unto Christ you might set by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing which is acceptable with God 1 Pet. 2. 19. Yet I grant sin is the Root of all suffering so it was of Christ's suffering though not his sin but ours Only I thought it meet to put you in mind that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin which the places alledged do shew and so other places The Object of Love is not only present Good There is a Love of Desire as well as of Delight The Spouse wanting Christ was sick of Love Cant. 5. 8. I did not say That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil but that it is not evil as sanctified Suffering though sanctified is suffering still and so evil but as sanctified it is good and not evil Those Arguments prove nothing against me nor I am perswaded against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms It is granted That Death in it self is Evil an Enemy a Punishment to be feared avoided c. Yet as it is sanctified it is good a Friend a Mercy to be desired embraced c. 2 Cor. 5. 6 7 8. Phil. 1. 21 23. It is evil 1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good 2. To them also to whom it is so managed but not as it is so managed Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi saith Grotius Well but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words as what they that use them do mean by them That which you speak of our discharge before believing might have been omitted the question being about Believers and so believing presupposed Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law this I think is a sufficient reason Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto Candidus imperti The Law so concurs to the constitution of Guilt as were there no Law there were no Transgression In the other two Particulars which follow we do accord also 1. Neither did I mean so as if there were no explicit threatning to Unbelievers but only this That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing it implies that death is only threatned in case of unbelief And tho there be an express threatning to Unbelievers viz. Mark 18. 16. yet not only to Unbelievers The threatning of death only to Unbelievers is I think only implyed in the promise of Liâ—e made to Believers 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess 1. 7 8. than what you express 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith the Fruit whereof is Obedience it will condemn the disobedient i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law while they remain in that estate though it hold out Mercy upon condition that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar but his reasons for that Position I do not know If no Law no sin for sin is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Your saying Aphor. p. 89. Whosoever will believe to the end shall be justified may seem to imply That though a Man â—elieve yet he remains unjustified as well as unglorified until he go on and hold out unto the end otherwise I suppose all will yeeld That a Man must believe unto the end that he may be justified unto the end 1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply
are justified This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument though I left out the word only And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me as I think in every point wherein we differ if he have occasion to treat of it It is true saith he that Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour not as Lord that justifies Christ rules his People as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes atonement for them as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his Blood for remission of Sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the Blood of Christ the Command of Christ the Doctrine of Christ but as it ties and fastens on his Blood so it justifies He is set out a propitiation through Faith in his Blood Rom. 3. 24. not through Faith in his Command It is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin and not the Sovereignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work Sovereignty doth not cleanse nor Blood command us Faith in his Blood not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty doth justifie us There are several acts of Justifying-Faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abraham's Obedience Moses Self-denyal Gideon or Sampson's Valour that was their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these things by his Spirit Your Similitude is not suitable for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband may be enriched or dignified by him though she never look at him as rich or honourable but only as her Husband But we must look at Christ as a Priest and as making Satisfaction for us that so we may be justified by him For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult Rom. 8.34 where those words It is Christ that died shew how Christ doth justifie us and free us from condemnation viz. by dying and so satisfying for our sins That which follows of Christ's Resurrection c. seems as to our Justification but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction which he made for us by his Death that so we may be justified by him 6. You grant that Christ not as King but as Priest doth justifie us meritoriously and satisfactorily and that is it which I urge That Christ's Satisfaction which as Priest he made for us is that whereby or for which we are justified Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us and so receive him as to that purpose viz. our Justification though I grant whole Christ or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfie for us except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us and as a King to govern us So I usually Preach and Teach 1. When you say That I leave the Errour in his Language but not in his Sense your words are ambiguous For they may import That I leave i.e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way but not the other Or that I leave i.e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language but not in his Sense This I take to be your meaning for else you could not say except ironically which I do not suspect that it is a fair Exposition and that you like it I have no reason to strive about another's words especially not knowing how they are brought in but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them 2. Where Ames hath those words you do not shew But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth nor with himself in saying Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith though not of Faith as Justifying and so much is acknowledged by Amesius as appears by his words before cited Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration Besides I find Amesius to have such words as you mention but withall to add such as plainly to express what I say Christus inquit est adaequatum objectum Fidei quatenus N. B. Fides Justificat Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam N. B. propter quam justificamur 1. The Text 1 John 4. 19. cannot I think be rightly understood but as I interpreted it For v. 10 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us in giving his Son for us And v. 19. he shews whence it is that we love God viz. from hence that God loved us first i.e. we apprehending the Love of God to us answer his love with love again Amat non immerito qui amatus sine merito as Bernard speaketh Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us before we can love him for what he hath done for us 2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love of which I speak 3. Embracing which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the compleating Act of Justifying-Faith doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii we can never sincerely embrace Christ if we do not desire him but amor delectationis or complacentiae doth follow after embracing viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed All that you add holds only in respect of the former kind not in respect of the latter 1. There are divers kinds of Love but I speak of that Love which differs from Desire and so did you seem to understand it as I noted from your words Aphorism p. 267. 2. Whereas you say There is no need of Faith to make it present before it can be accepted and loved you cannot by Faith mean Assent for that you grant doth go before Love and Acceptance And if by Faith you mean Acceptance surely there must be Acceptance before a thing can be accepted though in time these go together But perhaps you only mean That though Faith as an Assent must go before in time and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature yet not so as to make a thing present For you add That God's Offer doth make it present But though the Offer be present yet the thing offered is not present so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must
illam quae in Sententiae pronuntiatione reputatione consistit Yet he hath nothing at all that I see of Justification at the Great Judgment much less that it is the actual most proper and compleat Justification He saith moreover Sententia haec fuit 1. in mente Dei quasi concepta per modum decreti justificandi 2. Fuit in Christo capite nostro à mortuis jam resurgente pronuntiata 3. Virtualiter pronuntiatur ex primâ illa relatione quae ex fide ingeneratâ exurgit 4. Expressè pronunciatur per Spiritum Dei testantem Spiritibus nostris reconciliationem nostram cum Deo In hoc testimonio Spiritâ—s non tam propriè ipsa justificatio consistit quà m actualis anteâ concessae perceptio per actum fidei quasi reflexum But as for the pronouncing of this Sentence at the Last Judgment he doth not so much as make any mention of it Neither doth Calvin that I find in his Institutions though he treat at large of Justification and that in sensu forensi speak any thing of Justification at the Last Judgment nor indeed any that I meet with except it be on the by as Bucanus and Maccovius who agree with me as I have shewed before 2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after That so Faith may appear true and genuine such as doth indeed receive Christ and so justifie Is not this a sufficient reason why they are inquired after But in that which follows about via ad Regnum c. you are quite extra viam You forget that we are now about Justification or at least that I do not make the Condition of Justification and of Salvation every way the same as you sometimes do This may suffice for your two first Objections To the Third and Fourth I answer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant Particula Enim non semper rei causam denotat sed illationis consequentiam sive ab effecto sive à causà sive à signo seu undecunque petitam Sic quando Christus dicit electis Venite benedicti c. Esurivienim c. particula illa non cum causa salutis sed cum signo causae connectitur Nam illa bona opera quae ibi recensentur sunt signa verae fidei adoptionis insitionis in Christum praedestinationis ac favoris divini quae sunt verae causae salutis You are therefore too free and forward in saying That the Uses pretended for this enquiring after mâ—re Signs are frivolous What though the business at Judgment be to enquire of the Cause and to sentence accordingly May not the Cause take it in the Law-sense be made to appear by Signs even as the Cause in the Logical-sense doth appear by the Effect and the Tree by the Fruit That Obedience is ipsa Causa de quâ quaeritur the terms Therefore and Because do not prove no more than the term For And here I may with better reason say than you did Appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum But here I must mind you of one thing which it seems you do not observe viz. That those terms which you build upon Because and Therefore are neither in the Original nor any Translation that I know except the Vulgar Latin which hath Quia Bellarmine urging these Particles Amesius answers Mat. 25. 21 23. Nulla particula reperitur nisi in Versione non probanda Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3. 1. You cite abundance of Texts but to what purpose You would have me try whether they speak only of Signs or or Conditions Conditions of what do you mean Of Justification That you are to prove but how it can be proved by any of those Texts I cannot see They speak of the necessity of Obedience unto Salvation of God's rendring unto Men according to their Deeds of the reward of good Works c. But doth it therefore follow that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Justification I am loth to be so plain with you as sometimes you are with me otherwise I could say I have seldom seen so many places of Scripture alledged to so little purpose Some of those places you seem to lay more weight upon as John 16. 27. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. and 1 John 3. 22 23. For here you do not only note the places but you also cite the words as if they were more especially to be observed Now for that Joh. 16. 27. The Father hath loved you because you have loved me What do you infer from thence That Works justifie as part of the Condition of Justification If this be a good Consequence I may say Reddat mihi minam qui me docuâ—t Dialecticam 1. Works and Love differ as well as Works though Works flow both from Love and Faith Calvin makes those words because you have loved me to denote an unfeigned Faith which proceedeth from a sincere Affection here called Love And I grant that such a Love viz. of Desire doth go before Justifying Faith 3. God doth love those that love him and that love Christ amore amicitiae yet amore benevolentiae he loves us before we love him 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Secundum hanc rationem inquit Calvinus hîcâ— dicimur amari à Deo dum Christum diligimus quia pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis c. That in 2 Cor. 5. 10. according to c. avails your Cause nothing For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgment so as that we shall receive according to them and yet be no part of the Condition of Justification but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified So for that in Joh. 3. 22. because we keep his Commandments c. I say with Calvin Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris or andi fiduciam sed in hoc tantùm insistit non posteà fide disiungi pietatem sincerum Dei cultum Nec absurdum videri debet quod particulam Causalem N. B. usurpet utcunque de causâ non disputetur Nam accidens inseparabile interdum Causae loco poni solet Quemadmodum siquis dicat Quia Sol Meridie supra nos lucet plus tunc esse caloris Neque enim sequitur ex luce oriri calorem 1. You shall confound Justification and Salvation betwixt which you know I make a great difference 2. I see not that any of the Texts alledged do prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Justification or to Right to Salvation Obedience is an Argument à posteriore of our Right unto Salvation and à priore a means of our enjoyment of it More than this by any Text of Scripture I presume will not be proved Your First and Second have nothing but mere Words Ad 3. I answer No more is the word Justification in any of the Texts which you cited Ad 4. What trick do you mean Or what prejudice Do you so wonder
be for it must be present by way of Enjoyment but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for so that the thing though it be offered yet until it be accepted it is absent because it is not enjoyed The thing offered must be desirously and in that respect lovingly accepted but it must first be accepted and then loved so as to joy and delight in it 3. We look at Christ as enjoyed when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight of which Love I speak Gaudium oritur ex hoc saith Raimundus de Sebundae quòd aliqua res scit se habere id quod habet non ex hoc duntaxat quod habet There must both be the Having of a thing and also the Knowing that we have it that we may rejoyce in it 4. As Assent must go before Acceptance so must Acceptance go before that Love of which I speak 1. I did not say or think that you thought so of all Love viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed for there is no distinguishing here of these as I have shewed before the Object is not present except it be enjoyed You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object and I thought you had meant that kind of Love because you did distinguish Love from Desire Therefore I said Love as you take it considereth its Object as present and enjoyed viz. Love as distinguished from Desire I know not I confess what to make of Love but either a Desire if the Object be absent or a Delight if the Object be present 2. That which you say concerning Acceptance Election and Consent is nothing to me who do not enquire whether they be divers acts or no but only shew that they go before Enjoyment and so differ from Love as I take it viz. Love of Complacency which doth follow Enjoyment I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance and the Love of Complacency to follow after it Although Amare velle bonum be one and the same yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio si objectum absit vel cum Complacentiâ si adsit Aquinas doth not satisfie me when he saith Nullus desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato if he mean that a thing is amatum prius quà m desideratum The very Desiderare I think is Amare and so is Gaudere also but the one is Amare quod abest the other Amare quod adest So you in the next Section say Desire is Love and Complacency is Love 1. I did not doubt much less deny that there is Amor Desiderii as well as Amor Complacentiae only I shewed that your words there must be meant of the former in which sense I did not oppose you but as it is taken in the other sense and so you seemed to take it before because you did expresly distinguish it from Desire Neither is your second any thing against me 3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense as according to the most proper sense viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was 1. The places which you alledg John 16. 27. and 14. 21. do not prove that Love viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love and Christ's Love to us so that we must first love God and Christ before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ therefore we love God and Christ 1 John 4. 19. The meaning of those other places as Calvin notes is this That they that love God insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris restimonium To which may be added That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more 2. Not only Love but Obedience also must go before Glorification but it doth not therefore follow That they must go before Justification as your self hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first is more than I can find in Scripture 1. What some have answered and what you have read in others I know not you cite none whose Works are extant but only Mr. Ball and him at large On the Covenant but where in that Book you do not shew I find there that he doth use the words Instrument and Condition promiscuously The Covenant of Grace saith he exacteth no other thing inherent in us as a Cause viz. instrumental of Justification or a Condition N. B. in respect of which we are justified but Faith alone This is point-blank against that which you say of him And again It is saith he the sole Instrumental or Conditional N. B. Cause required on our part to Justification As I shewed before in the Animadversions ad pag. 243. our Divines say Fides sola justificat sed Fides quae justificat non est sola but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith Thus Stapleton somewhere I cannot now cite the place testifyeth of them saying Omnes adunum Protestantes docent Fidem justifcantem esse vivam operantem per charitatem atque alia bona opera 2. I grant That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite if you will call it so as I see not but you may though Amor Concupiscentiae is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae and so you speak of it p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae then neither do I speak against you For of that do I speak and had reason I think to understand you as speaking of it because you spake of Love as distinct from Desire Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency which are the Species of it but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love that Love which is not the one of these must needs be the other We accept or chuse a thing because we first Love i.e. desire it or as we use to say have a mind to it and having accepted and chosen it we further love it so as to delight in it except our Love turn into Hatred as Amnon's unchast Love did but the very Accepting or Chusing of a thing is not that I see properly a Loving of it 3. I grant that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance Consent c. the Love of Desire doth not but the Love of Complacency doth This is all that I have desired and so much you have yeelded 1. The distinction of Fides quae and Fides quà as it is frequently used by our Learned Writers so it doth hold good