not designed to their provocation or dishonour and as I heartily do the like by theirs and as I hope God will do both theirs and mine And I do adjure the Reader to believe that this Controversie for all our infirmities is managed with a very high esteem and honour of those Reverend Brethren whom I am necessitated to gainsay Nor would I have it be any dishonour to them though an excuse to me that they have been the Assailants and begun the conflict for the Truths of God must be precious to us all and I doubt not but they were confident that it was some dangerous errour which they set upon and I have here proved to be the Truth Nor is it any such wrong to either side to be openly contradicted that Reasons may be openly produced and men may have some further help to see into these Points Let the proud swell or smart because they are thus proclaimed fallible and mistaken but the Humble that are devoted servants to the Truth are of another spirit and have learnt another lesson And if any Papist or enemy to our unity and Peace shall from these Writings predicate our dissentions or divisions let them know to their faces that even these differences as momentous as they seem are not neer so great as are commonly published among themselves nor are they for Number one to twenty perhaps to a hundred that are agitated in their Schooles and the writings of their Doctors Had we such differences as those of the Jesuit Casuists opened by Montaltas the Jansenian in his Mysterie of Jesuitism out of their own writings something they might then say against us Yea I doubt not but we differ with more hearty Christian Love then they agree and have more real union in our controversies then they have in their Articles of Faith and are neerer one another in our smaller differences then the French and Italians are in their very Fundamentals The third Disputation was called forth by Mr. Warner's Treatise of the Object and Office of Faith and takes up the subject of the first Disputation with some others When that was in the Press Mr. Tombes's Book against Infant Baptism came forth in which I found the Papers that I sent to him upon his importunity printed without my consent which if God will I shall yet vindicate And therefore seeing that it is his way I thought he might do the like by other Papers which formerly I had wrote to him on this subject of Justification And therefore thinking it fitter that I should publish them of the two then he I have saved him the charge of printing them and annexed them to these The fourth Disputation was added because it is the very heart of our Controversie which most of our Disputes about the instrumentall Causality of Faith as to Justification and the other Concomitant are resolved into That the Reader may understand these Disputations the better I shall here at the entrance shew him the face of the way that I maintain and also of the way that I oppose The way that I plead for is contained in these Propositions 1. Man having broken the Law of Nature or works is lost and disabled to his own Recovery or to do any works by which that Law will ever justifie him 2. Jesus Christ hath Redeemed him from this lost condition by his Incarnation Life Death Resurrection c. fulfilling the Law by his obedience and suffering for our not fulfilling it and thereby satisfying the Lawgiver and attaining the ends of the Law and more making himself an example to us of holiness and becoming our Teacher High Priest and King to save us from all sin and enemies and recover us to God for our Salvation and his Glory and Pleasure 3. The Offices and Works of Christ are for other ends as well as for our justification even for our Sanctification Glorification c. 4. The Believer ought not to confound the offices works or ends and effects but to apprehend them as distinctly as he can 5. The same Offices of Christ are exercised in the effecting several works He doth justifie us both as Priest Prophet and King and he sanctifieth us as Priest Prophet and King His Death purchasing both our justification and sanctification and his Teaching shewing us the way to both and his Kingly Office conferring both though most notably our justification and the Prophetical effecting more of our sanctification then of our justification 6 We must have part in Christ himself as our Head in order of Nature before we can partake of justification Sanctification as following our first faith or Glorification from him 7. Though our Physical Communion with Christ is effected by a Physical change on the soul yet our Right to him and to Justification and other following benefits is the effect of a free Gift or Testament or Promise and that Promise or free Gift is our Title which is Fundamentum juris or the efficient Instrumental cause 8. Christ and pardon or justification and Right to Heaven c. are given us by one and the same Deed of Gift so that he that hath Right to Christ hath by the same Title on the same terms Right to these his benefits 9. This Promise or Gift is conditional though it be but the Condition of a free Gift that is required 10. No mans works Repentance or Faith is his proper Title to pardon or life nor any proper meritorious cause of it nor any efficient Principal or Instrumental causes of his Right No act of ours can be more then a meer condition of that Right and a Causa sine quâ non which as it is an act that 's pleasing to God and hath the Promise of a Reward the Fathers called improperly by the Name of Merit which yet less fitly agrees to the Condition of our first Justification then of our Glorification 11. Christs pardon and life are given by this Gospel-Promise on condition of our faith in Christ that is if we become Believers in Christ or Christians which is If we accept of Christ as offered in the Gospel and that is to bring us from our sins and selves to God by the acts of his Teaching Priestly and Kingly Office Or if we believe in Christ as Christ So that it is not any one single act of Faith that is the condition of Justification nor are the several Benefits of Christ given us on condition of several acts of Faith as if we had Right to pardon by one act and to Christ himself by another and to Adoption by another and to Heaven by another c. Nor have the several acts of our faith as divided an Interest in procurement of the Benefits as Christs actions had But it is one and the same entire faith in Christ as Christ that is the condition of all these consequent special Benefits without division in the procurement So that the Belief in Christ as our Teacher and King hath as much hand in our
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
Whether if Magistrates be Officers of Christ as King by Office they be not in his Kingdom and so Infidel Magistrates in Christs Kingdom contrary to Col. 1.14 4. If it be maintained That Christ died for every Child of Adam conditionally It would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant was the End or Effect of Christs death and whether the so Interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all will not serve for Evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs Satisfaction aad Merit proper to the Elect. For if they may be Interpreted so He died to procure the conditional Covenant for every one this may be alledged justly then you can prove no more thence for that is the sense and then we cannot prove thence he died loco nostro c. It is a matter of much moment and needs great Circumspection Yours Sir BEsides what hath been formerly suggested to you these words in your Scripture proofs pag. 323. And where he next saith that in the aged several dispositions are required to fit a man to receive pardon and so justification viz Catholike faith hope of pardon fear of punishment grief for sin a purpose against sining hereafter and a purpose of a new life all which dispose the Receiver and I agree to him though all do not are so like the Doctrine of the Trent Council sess 6. c. 6. that it will be expected you declare whether by avowing that speech of Dr. Ward you do not join with the Papists contrary to Bishop Downam of Justification l. 6. c. 7. § 1.2 Mr. Pemble vindict fidei § 2. c. 3. And when you make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience it s to be considered how you will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercifion of Justification upon the committing of a sin that wasts the conscience refuted by Dr. Rob. Abbot but vented after by Moutague in his appeal and opposed by Dr. Preston and others As for Justification by Law-Title by the Covenant upon actual Believing without any other act of God consequent on Faith if it were so 1. Then it should be by necessary Resultancy But Justification is an Act of Will and no act of Will is by necessary Resultancy 2. If the Covenant justifie without any other Act of God then it Adops Glorifies Sanctifies c. without any other Act which is not to be said The reason of the Sequel is because the Covenant of it self doth in the same manner produce the one as well as the other 3. The Justification of the Covenant is only conditional therefore not Actual Actual Justification is not till Faith be put and then Posit â conditione it is Actual A conditional is only a possible Justification it s only in potentia till the Condition be in act Now the Covenant doth only assure it on condition as a future thing not therefore as actual or present 4 The Covenant is an Act past Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.7 8. so not continued and consequently the Justification barely by it without any other Act must be past long since and not continued and he neither Justification Actual and in purpopse or virtual will be confounded or an effect shall be continued without the cause Jan. 17 1651. Yours I.T. Reverend Sir I AM more thankfull to you for these free candid rational Animadversions then I can now express to you yet being still constrained to dissent from you by the evidence of Truth I give you these Reasons of my dissent 1. First You think that the Scriptures cited are not to be intepreted of Justification in Title of Law because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification not the Sentence it self and is general and indeterminate to particular persons c. To which I answer 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant Promise the moral action thereof For you must know that this Promise of God 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est as Grotius speaks Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem But it is Perfecta Promissio ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Dominâ—i Est enim aut via ad alienaâ—ionem rei aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili 2. c. 11. § 2.3 4. 2. This Promise or Covenant of God is also his Testament and who knoweth not that a Testament is an Instrctment of proper Donation and not only a Prediction 3. Moreover this same which in one respect is a Covenant and Promise and in another a Testament is also truly part of Gods Law even the New constitution of Christ the Law-giver and King But â—ndoubtedly a Law which conferreth Right either absolutely or conditionally is the true and proper Instrument of that Effect and not only the presenting or promising away thereto The proper Effect or Product of every Law is Debitum aliquod Et de hoc debito determinare is its proper Act. Now therefore this Promise being part of Christs Law doth determine of and confer on us the Debitum or Right to sentential Justification having first given us an Interest in Christ and so to the Benefit of his satisfaction and this is Justificatio constitutiva You know a Deed of Gift though but conditional is a most proper Instrument of conferring the Benefits therein contained And is not the Promise undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift And doth he not thereby make over as it were under his hand the Lord Jesus and all his Benefits to them that will receive him So that when you say that his Promise to justifie upon condition is not justifying You may see it is otherwise by all the forementioned considerations of the nature of the Promise You may as well say a Testament or deed of Gift conditional doth not give or a Law doth not confer Right and Title And in these Relative benefits to give Right to the thing and to give the thing it self or right in it is all one still allowing the distance of time limited for both in the Instrument It is all one to give full right to son-ship and to make one a Son or at least they are inseparable Yea which weigheth most of all with me it being the proper work of Gods Laws to give Duness of or Right to Benefits it cannot be any other way accomplished that is within our Knowledge I think For Decree Purpose and so Predestination cannot do it they being Determinations de eventu and not de debito as such And the sentential declaration presupposeth this Debitum or true Righteousness an
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
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
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
so desire me not to take it ill to be called an erring shepherd As if I did not know my Proneness to err and were not conscious of the weakness of my understanding or as if the expressions of so sincere love did need excuse or as if I were so tender and brittle as not to endure so gentle a touch as if my confidence of your love were Plumea non Plumbea and would be blown away with such a friendly breath Certainly Sir your sharper smiting would be precious Balm so it light not on the Truth but me I am not so unctuous nitrous or sulfureous as to be kindled with such a gratefull warmth My Intellect were too much active and my affections too passive if by the reception of the beams of such favourable expressions my soul as by a Burning-Glass should be set on fire I am oft ashamed and amazed to think of the horrid intolerable Pride of many learned Pious Divines who though they have no worse Titles then Viri docti reverendi celeberrimi yet think themselves abused and unsufferably vilified if any word do but acrius pungere or any Argument do faucibus premere witness Rivet and Spanhemius late angry censure of Amyraldus Can we be fit Preachers and Patterns of meekness and humility to our people who are so notoriously proud that we can scarce be spoke to My knowledge of your eminent humility and gentelness hath made me also the freer in my speeches here to you which therefore do need more excuse then yours And I accordingly intreat you if any thing have passed that is unmannerly according to the natural eagerness and vehemency of my temper that you will be pleased to excuse what may be excused and the rest to remit and cover with love assuring your self it proceeds not from any diminution of his high esteem of you and love to you who acknowledgeth himself unfeignedly so very much below you as to be unworthy to be called Your fellow-servant RICHARD BAXTER June 28. 1650. Kederminster Postscript DEar Sir while I was waiting for a messenger to send this by Master Brooksby acquaints me that you wisht him to tell me that I must expect no more in writing from you My request is that whereas you intimated in your first a purpose of writing somewhat against me on this subject hereafter you would be pleased to do it in my life time that I may have the benefit of it if you do it satisfactorily and if not may have opportunity to acquaint you with the reasons of my dissent Scribunt Asinium Pollionem dixisse aliquando se parasse orationes contra Plancum quas non nisi post mortem esset editurus Plancum respondisse cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari ut Lud. Vives ex Plinio Dr. Humfred ex illo Jesuit 2. p. 640. Also I request that if possible you would proceed on such terms as your Divinity may not wholly depend upon meer niceties of Philosophy For I cannot think such points to be neer the foundation Or at least that you will clearly and fully confirm your Philosophical grounds For as I find that your Doctrine of a Passive Instrumentality of the Act of faith and that in a Moral reception of righteousness which is but a relation yet calling it Physical is the very bottom of the great distance between us in the point of justification So I am of opinion that I may more freely dissent from a brother in such tricis philosophicis then in an Article of faith Especially having the greatest Philosophers on my side and also seeing how little accord there is among themselves that they are almost so many men so many minds and when I find them professing as Combacchius in praefâ—ad Phys that they write against their own sense to please others quod maximam opinionum in lib. contentarum partem non jam probaret Aristotelem non esse normam veritates and wishing ut tandem aliquando exurgat aliquis qui perfectiora nobis principia monstret and to conclude as he salsitatem opinionum sententiarum scientiarum imperfectionemâ—jam pridem video sed in veritate docenda deficio Et Nulli aut paucis certe minus me satisfacturum ac mihi ipsi sat scio And how many new Methods and Doctrines of Philosophy this one age hath produced And I am so far sceptical my self herein as to think with Scaliger ibid. cit Nos instar vulpis à Ciconia delusae vitreum vas lambere pultem haud attingere But I believe not that in any Master point in Divinity God hath left his Church at such an utter loss nor hanged the faith and salvation of every honest ordinary Christian upon meer uncertain Philosophical speculations I do not think that Paul knew what a Passive instrument was much less an act that was physically passive in its instrumentality in a moral causation You must give me leave to remain confident that Paul built not his Doctrine of justification on such a philosophical foundation till you have brought one Scripture to prove that faith is an instrument and such an instrument which can neither be done Especially when the same Paul professeth that he came not to declare the Testimony of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he determined not to know any thing among them save Iesus Christ and him crucified and that his speech and preaching was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so their faith might not stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he spoke the mysteries of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2. I am past doubt therefore that to thrust such Philosophical dictates into our Creed or Confession and make them the very touchstone of Orthodoxness in others is a dangerous presumptuous adding to the Doctrine of the Gospel and a making of a new Doctrine of justification and salvation to the great wrong of the Prophet and Lawgiver of the Church I was even now reading learned Zanchius proof that believers before Christ did by their faith receive Christs flesh or humane nature as promised and future as well as the Divine and his heavy censure of the contrary Doctrine as vile and unsufferable which occasioneth me to add this Quere Whether that believing was a physical reception when the object had no real being or did not exist Or whether meer morral reception by Accepting Choosing Consenting as a people receiving the Kings Heires for their future Governours before they are born or as we receive a man for our King who dwels far out of our sight Or as Princes wives do use to take them both for their Husbands and Soveraign Lords even in their own Native Countrey before they come to sight of the man the match being both driven on and made and the marriage or contract performed and imperfectly solemnized at that distance by an Embassador or Delegate just so do we receive Christ whose humane nature is far off and his Divine out
will believe him shall no further be disturbed by me in his belief I doubt I have wearied the Reader already and therefore I shall only add a few words about a few more of the most considerable passages in his Book Some other of Mr. Warners passages of most importance considered Pag. 385. MR. W. saith It 's worth the observing how to evade the Distinction of the Acts of faith he saith that faith is one act in a moral sense as Taking a man to be my Prince Teacher Physitian c. and not in a physical sence for so it is many acts c. And he confuteth me thus Here Reader see the wit or forgetfulness of the man who to maintain his own ground doth often consider faith as Physically seated in the understanding and will but when we assault him will not allow us any Physical but a moral Acception of it Answer A most gross untruth and that 's an Arguing that Faith needeth not Your forgery is not only without ground and contrary to my plain and frequent words but contrary to the express words that you draw your Observation from I say faith Physically taken is many acts but morally taken it is one work Hence you call out to the Reader to observe that I will not allow you any Physical but a Moral Acception of it Is it fit to Dispute with such dealing as this Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Physical Act except them of late that take it to be but a Passion and a Nominal action Surely all know that it is an Act in order of Nature before it is a moral act Actus moralis is first actus Physicus Though Moraliter actus i. e. actus Reputativus may be but a non-acting Physically He that wilfully famisheth his own child doth kill him morally or reputatively and so is moraliter agens that is Reputative But he that cherisheth him is an Agent natural and moral that is Ethical or Vertuous I wonder what made you think me of such an opinion that I have so much wrote against He next saith that Though by one moral act we receive divers benefits yet we receive them to divers purposes Answer True But many such passages of yours are to no purpose and such is this impertinent to the business Page 391. He comes to my Distinction where I say that ex parte Christi he satisfieth Justice as a Ransom and Teacheth us as our Master and Ruleth us as our King yet ex parte nostri it is but one and the same entire faith that is the condition of our Title to his several benefits From hence he ingeniously gathereth that I say That faith hath but one respect to those benefits and is not diversified by several acts and deny the necessity of these distinct acts in reference to the several benefits of Christ Whereas I only maintained that though the acts be Physically distinct yet they are not distinct conditions of our Interest in the benefits but the same entire faith is the one condition of them all Hereupon he learnedly addresseth himself to prove that faith hath several acts And he that thinketh it worth his time to transcribe and confute his Arguments let him do it for I do not Page 401. He thinks We need not dispute whether the Reception of Christ by faith be moral or Physical however it is not an improper but proper reception Answ 1. It seems then we need not dispute whether Christs body be every where and whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat 2. And whereas Recipere in its first and proper signification was wont to be pati now it is agere And whereas consent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically now it is becoma a proper Reception Page 303.304 Reasoning against me he saith The nearest formal Reason of a Believers Interest is not Gods making it a condition which is the remote reason thereof but a Believers fulfilling the condition c. Answ 1. Here he changeth the question from What is the nearest reason of saiths Interest to What is the nearest reason of the Believers Interest To the first I say Its being made the condition of the Promise To the second I say The Promise or grant it self 2. He findeth a learned Confutation for me viz. That it is not Gods making but the fulfilling the condition that is the formal Reason Answ Performance that is Believing maketh faith to be faith and exist but the Promise makes that the condition I spoke de esse and he de existere And yet I usually say that The nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification iâ— as it is the condition of the Promises fulfilled that I might joyn both 3. Note that in this his Assertion he granteth me the sum of all that I desire For if this be true then it is not the Nature or the Instrumentality of faith that is the nearest reason as is usually said Page 200. He doth as solemnly call his Adversarie ad partes as if he were in good sadness to tell him what is the causality of works is Justification And falling to his enumeration he tells us that The particle A or Ab notes the peculiar causality of the efficient the particle Ex notes the material cause the particle Pâ—r or By the formal cause the particle Propter the final cause Answ I must erave pardon of the Reader while I suppose all this to be currant that I may answer ad hominâ—m And then 1. It seems faith is not the efficient cause and therefore not the Instrumental cause For A or ab is not affixed to it in this business 2. It seems then that faith is the formal cause of Justification because we are said to be Justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.22 25 30 passim By Faith So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Instrumental efficient cause 3. Hence it seems also that faith even the same faith is the material cause too For most certainly we are said to be justified ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.26 30. Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16 3.8 7 5 9 22 24. 5.5 Jam. 2.24 Whether ex fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do indeed express an Instrumental efficient I leave to consideration But sure I am it fitly expresseth the Interest of a condition And if Mr. W. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Righteousness it must be but of our subordinate particular Evangelical righteousness which consisteth in fulfilling the condition of Justification Chap. 5. pag. 29.30 31. He spends a Chapter to open to us the meaning of fides qua Justificat And prosesseth that it is the Carad controversia yea it was the remembrance of this distinction and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Discourse and that it is the basis of his
enacting of the Grant and still is his Will that this his Grant or Deed of Gift should moraâ—iter agere â—ffecius hos vel illos producore at such a distance upon such and such conditions The Act and Effect of the Law or Testament is the Act and Effect of the Legislator and Testator whose Instrument it is But the said Law or Testament doth not efficaciter agere or produce these effects tâ—â— the time that the conditions are performed for it is the Nature of a Moral condition to be added for the suspension of the Effect or event of the â—rant c. till it be performed Therefore the Rector Donor or Testator doth not efficaciter agere till then And therefore he acteth by that his Instrument then or not at all If you give by Deed or by Willâ— such and such portions to some Children at such a term of Age and to others when they marry The full actual Right is by a meer Resultancy as from the Instrument but by an Act of Will as from you but really from neither before the Term or condition performed This is a most obvious Truth 2. And as easie is the Answer to your second If the Covenant justifie without any other Act then it adopts sanctifieth Glorifieth without any other Answer In the Propositions against Mr. Bedford you might have seen this dispelled For Adoption I yield the whole But know you not that as there is great difference between changes Relative and Qualitative so the later results not from a meeâ— Fundamentum c. but is effected by a Physical Operation It is Jus ad rem it is Right or Duness which is the proper immediate product or quasi effect resulting from and given by the Law or the like Instrument and not the natural thing it self Now in these Relations either the Right and the thing it self are the same or else the difference so small that it is next to undiscernable and must needs both in eâ—dem instanti result as afore said But in Physical changes thete is a greater difference between the Right and the Benefit The Benefit cannot as the Right doth proceed per â—ndam resultantiâ—â— If you give your Son 100. l. by a Deed of Gift this giveth him the Right immediately but not the Thing There must be a Physical Act to that But Pardon to a Malefactor is given by a written Pardon or Grant from whence the Right to it and the Benefit it self do immediately result being indeed but one thing except my understanding be too gross to distinguish them If therefore you had said as you should that Right to Glory and to Sanctity so far as that Covenant giveth it are bestowed without any other Act except finall Judgement which is necessary to full Justification as well as Glory I should yield you all 3. To your third That the Covenant justifies but conditionally therefore not actually I answered before for it was one of your former Arguments Conditio est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit saith Cujacius And as Mynsinger saith Neque actio neque obligatio ulla est antequam conditio eveniat quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Schol. in Justit p 52â— So that it is the Nature of the condition to suspend the effect but not to make the cause to be no cause Indeed if the Condition be never performed then it destroyes or prevents the effect and so the Instrument doth not agere And why but because it was the Will of the Agent that it should act so and on such terms or else not so that the non-performance doth not undo what the Instrument did nor doth it disoblige the Author but it manifesteth that he was never obliged they are Grotius words I conclude therefore that when the condition is performed then the Instrument or conditional Grant doth begin verè agere donarâ— and the Agent by it but till then it doth not properly act or effect at all Is not your Testament that gives your Legacy because it gives conditionally Or must there be some other Act to make it an absolute proper Gift 4. Your fourth also is one of those which you have in the Beginning where I have answered it The Covenant you say is an Act past and so not continued and so the Justification by it past and not continued c. Answer The Physical Act of Legislation or Covenant granting is past but this only makes it an Instrument able and fit to produce such and such effects and not actually to produce them at that present when it is conditional But the Moral action of this Law or Covenant is not past but continued The Law or Covenant is not out of Date And therefore it continueth still to justifie The making of our Laws are Acts past by Parliaments long ago and so not continued Will you therefore conclude that the Moral Agency or Efficiency of these Laws is past and therefore they do not condemn or justifie I know no ground that can bear your conclusions except with Rishworth Dialog and such other of the more impudent Papists one should vilifie the Scripture and say that they were only Miscellaneous occasional writings and never intended to be Gods Law or our Rule of Faith and Life but I believe you will never come to that Surely David frequently stileth the old Scriptures that were in his Times Gods Law And why many Divines should strike in with some Lutheranâ— Error in denying the Gospel or New Scripture to be properly Christs Law and so inveigh against those that call it the New Law I know no Reason but that the ignis fatuus of contention and prejudice misleadeth them O happy Disputers that are not carried head-long into extreams by the spirit of Contradiction What more proper to the reformed Religion as such then to honour the Scriptures And how do these men vilifie them and rob them of their highest honor that deny them to be the Laws of God yea deny this to the Gospel it self Is not Christ the Law-giver Isa 33.22 Psal 60.7 and 108.8 and the King Must not the Law go out of Zion Isa 2.3 And is not that the Law and Testimony to which we must seek Multitudes of Scriptures and most of the Fathers that ever I read do call the Gospel Christs Law or the new law 2. To your second Exception against my approving a speech of Dr. W. I ans 1. Do I need to tell you how unlike this saying of Dr. Wards is to that of the Council of Treâ—t You know by Justification they mean principally Sanctification But the Dr. saith not that these are preparatives to Justification Sure you could not seriously suspect me to join with the Papists when they speak of one Subject and I of another The acts of that Session will tel you more differences between them and me then is worth the while to repeat and you know how largely Chemmitius endeavours