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 all sin and not the Soveraignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his Soveraignty doth Justifie us §. 1. R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes that I resolve to begin with it I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions and not de Substantia rei But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importance of your expressions may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on And that not per accidens but from its proper nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against and I am glad to find you so little in love with it as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered For now I rest assured that you will not be offended when here or hereafter I shall open your guiltiness of it and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise before I can give a clear answer to your words 1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant called by most Justificatio Juris and Justification per sententiam Judicis 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun and as continued or consummate 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation 4. Between these two questions What justifieth ex parte Christi and What justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non cum quâ 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification and his actual justifying him by constitution or sentence Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in these Propositions which some of them shall speak further then the present Point in Question for a preparation to what followeth Prop. 1. Christ did Merit our Justification or a power to justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant Prop. 2. Christ dotn justifie Constitutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e. quoad valorem rei he conferreth it ut Dominus gratis benefaciens but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi ut Rector Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the new Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remission and constitute us Righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Satisfier but joyntly ut Benefactor Rector Prop. 3. Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Prop. 4. Sentential Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification that in Law being quoad sententiam but virtual Justification though quoad constitutionem debiti relationis it be actual Justification Prop. 5. Faith justifieth not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say To justifie is not to make such a real change Though some joy◠with the Papists in this and tell me that as the Divine Attributes make their several moral Impressions on the soul according to their several natures so do the satisfaction and merits of Christ apprehended procure comfort and joy and a justifying sentence to be pronounced in the soul it self and so the apprehension of Christs Soverainty causeth our subjection which last is true Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Physical Causation or Efficiency in justifying seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare in whole or in part but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis sed conditionaliter collatum It is a Relative change that is made by Justification and not a Real or Physical Prop. 7. The Legal formal interest or conducibility of Faith to our Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition in the proper law-Law-sense as the word Condition is used viz. that species of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Potestativae and not Casuales vel Mixtae Prop. 8. Scripture doth not say that I can finde that Faith justifieth but that we are justified by Faith I therefore use the later phrase rather then the former both because it is safest to speak with the Scripture and because the former speech seemeth to import an Efficiency but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition Yet I will not quarrell with any that speaks otherwise nor refuse to speak in their phrase while I dispute with them as long as I first tell them my meaning Prop. 9. Though ex parte Christi our several changes proceed from his several Benefits and parts of his Office exercised for us yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his several Benefits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object Christ meriteth Remission for us as Satisfier of Justice and he actually justifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge and he teacheth us as Prophet and ruleth us as King The real mutations here on us receive their diversification partly from our faith because there faith doth efficere or causare As we learn of Christ because we Beleeve him or Take him for our Teacher We obey him because we Take him for our King c. But it is not so with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Christ and his Benefits Faith doth not obtain Right to Remission and Justification distinctly as it receiveth his Righteousness or himself as Priest and so Right to the Priviledges of Christs Government distinctly as it taketh him as King nor Right to Adoption as it taketh him as a Father nor Right to Glory as it taketh him as Glorifier no more then all inferiour benefits as Title to Magistracy Ministry Health House Lands c. proceed and are diversified by the divers aspects of our faith on Christ The true Reason of which is this
That Right to a benefit is the meer effect of the Gift Donation or Revealed Will of the Giver And therefore no Act of the Receiver hath any more interest or any other then it pleaseth the Donor to assign or appoint it to have So that suppositâ actus naturâ all the formall Civil interest comes from Gods meer Will as Donor for to the Absolute Benefactor doth it belong as to conferre all Right to his freely-given Benefits so to determine of the Time and Manner of Conveyance and so of the Conditions on the Receivers part The nature of the Act of Faith is caused by 〈◊〉 as Creator of the old and new Creature I mean of our natural faculties and their supernatural endowments or dispositions And therefore this is presupposed in ordine naturae to faiths Legal interest As God is first the Maker of earth before he is the Maker of Adams body Faith is to be considered as being Faith i. e. such acts exercised about such objects in order of nature before it can be rightly considered as justifying or the condition of Justification Seeing therefore it receives all its formal Legal interest from God as Legislator and Donor of Christ and his benefits which is after its material aptitude ad hoc officium its interest must not be gathered directly ex natura actus but ex constitutione donantis ordinantis And therefore you must first prove out of the Gospel that It is the Ordination of God that as Christs several actions have their several effects for us and on us so our faith shall be the proper condition of each of these various effects quâ apprehendit as it Beleeveth or Accepteth each distinct effect or Christ distinctly as the cause of that effect etiam consideratum in modo causandi But alas how invisible is the Proof of this in all your Writings I will leave the rest of the Propositions by which I intended here together to have opened some more of my sense till afterwards because I will not interrupt the present business Here either my Understanding is too shallow to reach your sense or else you are guilty quoad literam of very great confusion which one would think should have befallen you at any time rather then when you are blaming others of unsufferable confusion and yet quoad sensum involutum of more dangerous unscriptural unproved Distinction 1. Your expressions confound Christ and his Actions with mans faith in our Justification Or these two Questions By what are we justified ex parte Christi and By what are we justified ex parte nostri 2. Your implied sense even the heart of your reasoning consisteth in this assertion that As our Right as to the several benefits received is to be ascribed distinctly to several distinct Causes on Christs part so also as distinctly are the particular Benefits quoad Debitum vel Titulum to be ascribed to the several distinct apprehensions of these Benefits as most say or of Christ as diversly causing them as some say And here I cannot but complain of a treble injustice that you seem to me guilty of even in this elaborate Treat wherein you correct the Errors of so many others 1. Against the Truth and Word of God in implying it to have done that even in the great Point the Constitution of the Condition of Justification and Salvation which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing and cutting the Condition of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive your doctrine 2. And also in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reason for the proof of it which is injustice when you are Confuting others and Rectifying the world in so great a Point 3. Lastly and leastly it is evident injustice to your Friend to Accuse him for it is no hard matter to know whom you mean with confounding the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship which he still distinguisheth as exactly as he can though he do nor distribute as many offices to Faith as there are objects for it or as he doth to Christs several Works Why did you not name one line where I do confound the parts of Christs Offices I pray you do it for me in your next I will not trouble you much with Arguments for my opinion in this Point seeing you meddle with none already laid down and seeing I have done it over and over to others and because I am now but Answering to your Confutation Only let me tell you that the Proof lieth on your part For when I have once proved that God giveth Christ and his Benefits to man on Condition he will Beleeve in Christ or Accept him If you will now distinguish and say It is Accepting his satisfaction which is the Condition of Justification and Accepting him as King which is the Condition of Sanctification or Glorification c. you must prove this to be true For non est distinguendum vel limitandum ubi Lex non distinguis vel limitat If God say Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and you say Beleeving in him as Priest is the only Condition of saving thee from guilt and Beleeving in him as King is the only Condition of saving thee from the power of sin c. you must prove this which you say Or if you will not say It is the only Condition but the only instrument you give up the Cause For the word Condition is it that expresseth its neerest Legal Interest in justifying or conveying any Right and that which you call its Instrumentality is but the natural Aptitude and Remote Interest 1. It is the Receiving of Christ as Christ that justifieth as the Condition of Justification But he is not received as Christ if not as Lord-Redeemer 2. Justifying faith is say the Assembly the Receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord and not as Saviour only Therefore c. 3. Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ as a full Saviour But that cannot be except he be received as Lord. For to save from the power of sin is as true a part of the Saviours Office as to save from the guilt 4. Justifying faith receiveth Christ as he justifieth us or as he is to justifie us But he doth justifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor as he satisfieth and meriteth in the form of a servant under the Law 5. If receiving Christ as a Satisfier and Meriter be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds you must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification For Christ Merited one as well as the other 6. Rejecting Christ as King is the condemning sin Therefore receiving him as King is the justifying faith Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring
to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one Whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What faith justifieth Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as
Service If a man take a woman in Marriage and estate her in all his Lands on condition that she will be to him a chast faithfull Wife here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition as to be his Wife So if God say He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved and he that hath not shall perish Here as faith is the principall part of the condition so that it be a Working is the secondary and as real a part of the condition as that it be faith And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving at Judgement you must be justified by producing your faith it self so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith 5. As for your single Argument here I answer 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by Works means not Works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture Others may see it and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words though you or I could not If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text we shall presume to make so great an alteration meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily q. d. And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled i e. historically spoke truly of that which was long before done Abraham beleeved God i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience and it i. e. beleeving and so obeying or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death was imputed to him c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection knowing that this would be objected he might say q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled which saith c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only yet when he was called to works he was justified also by his obedience 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation according to your exposition as mine For you may as well say How do these accord He was justified by a working faith and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith He was justified by faith For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith and yet this is it the Text speaks but that he was justified by works seconding faith or as you say by a Working-faith Where if you put any emphasis on the term Working and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving you say as much as I and then James must cite that Text expositorily and then whether according to my exposition or yours varies not the case seeing one saith as much for Works as the other But I suppose you will say Faith which justifieth must be working but it justifieth not qua operans Ans 1. True nor qua fides i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working If you say Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification that we beleeve with a working faith and so that it be working is part of the Condition you say the same in sense as I. If you say either that working is necessary as a sign that faith is true or that the nature of true faith will work both are truth but to say this is the Apostle's sense is to null all his Argumentation For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem even that Justification which he cals Impuâ—ing of Righteousness and that by God And he argueth not only Physically what the nature of faith will produce but morally what men must do to such ends And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term Works signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and so its true Or it signifieth all good actions and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works If you say But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works I easily grant it That they be Good floweth from the Precept That they Justifie floweth from the Promise constituting them the Condition If they should justifie because Good their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousnessâ— But yet they must be Good before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness consisting in their aptitude to this work and to Glorifie the free Justifier Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture look not with such a face as your Proposition This may serve to your following words §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifieth us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtle a Notion We use to speak otherwise of faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not â—ight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 18.26 Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a righteousness which faith receives Christ dwels in us by faith Eph. 3.17 By faith we take him in and give him entertainment We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gal. 3.14 These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies but some body will be sorry
or angry which side soever I take I am sorry that I have made you sorry but not for that Doctrine which caused it which yet I shall be as soon as I can see cause for it 2. Why would you not here attempt to prove that which you are so sorry should be denied viz. That faith is the instrument of Justification Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonstration of the errour of what you complain of 3. I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of Justification as you are that I deny it And as your sorrow urged you to publish it so did mine urge me And my sorrow had these causes which I am content may be well compared with yours that it may appear which were the juster and greater 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it 3. I thought it of dangerous consequence to say that man iâ— the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins 4. Yet all this had never caused mâ— to open my mouth against it for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels But for the next viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality but they laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference between us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification say they it is that they Fundamentally erre and we Principally differ And that in these four Points 1. About the formall cause of our Righteousness which say these Divines is the formall Righteousness of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde In the habitual Righteousness of his humane nature and others The natural Righteousness of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation herein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that Legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which Justifieth which say most of our forreign Reformers is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof I doubt not but all these four are great Errors Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists That which troubled me was this To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion when they finde that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause what wonder if they judge our Cause naught This is no fancy nor any needless fears but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause as will not easily be healed Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase and not made it so great a part of our Religion to the hazarding of the whole I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can finde them You begin with and say more for faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ You can say no more of me concerning this but that it will be scarce allowed to be so called This intimates that I make it no matter of contention nor do I know how I could have said less if any thing when it s only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention and not the sense which I thought with so much tenderness I might do upon reason given it being no Scripture phrase If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument They that say the Habit is the instrument speak not properly but far more tolerably then the others do If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul then so may other Habits And why is not this language more in use among Logicians if it be so unquestionably proper But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument for you answer only to what I say against that I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving in Answer to another Learned Brother which for the necessity of distinguishing here I would have added but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive Receiving in a Civil Ethical less proper sense is but the Act of accepting what is offered When it is only a Relation or Jus ad rem that is offered Consent or Acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession or proper Passive reception that it is therefore called Receiving it self yet is indeed no efficient cause of the Passive reception or possession but a conditio fine qua non and a subjective disposition and so makes the subject capable of the benefit but being no efficient it can be no instrument Yet still I say that if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase specially if some men had the same ingenuity as others have that say it is but instrumentum metaphoricum But to say that the act of faith is the instrument of Ethical Active reception which is it that I argued against is to say Receiving Christ is the instrument of it self Now let 's see what you say to this 1. You say It s too subtill a Notion That deserves no Reply 2. You say We use to speak otherwise of faith That 's no proof that you speak properly You say Faith is the eye of the soul and the eye is not sight Faith is the hand c. Ans 1. Strange proof not only by Metaphors but by metaphors of meer humane use 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the soul as distinct from sight and the hand as distinct from receiving Tell us then what actual seeing and receiving is To speak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Assertion Next you say Scripture speaks otherwise That 's to the purpose indeed if true You cite Act. 18.26 where is no such matter If By signifie an instrumentall cause It is either Alwaies or Sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies If but sometimes Why do you take it for granted that it so signifies here Why did you not offer some proof This is easie Disputing Next you say Why else is this Righteousness sometime called the
instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick 2. If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progress and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology God bids men wash them and purifie their hearts and cleanse their hands and make them new hearts c. and Peter saith Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit c. 1 Pet. 1.22 And we must cleanse our selves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God 2 Cor. 7.1 with many the like 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon 4. When you say that Faith as an instrument receiveth righteousness to Justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration Their meaning as far as I can understand of the whole business is this 1. They conceive of Christs own righteousness wherewith himself was righteous as given to us 2. They conceive of the act of faith as the instrument of receiving this 3. Upon the receiving of this they conceive we are justified as a man that receiveth Riches is Rich or that receiveth Honour is Honourable 4. Because faith is the instrument of receiving righteousness therefore say they It is the instrument of Justification For Justification Constitutivè is but a relation resulting from righteousness received This is the summe of the common judgement of most that I have read But these things must be more accurately considered I think And 1. It must be known that the Righteousness given us is not the Righteousness whereby Christs person was Righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a Righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us 2. It must needs be known that the faith which is the Justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives us in Remission Remission or Righteousness may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but Righteousness or Remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of Justification or at least but a secondary remote object even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches but the Man though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband And as a Patient being promised to be cured if he will take such a man for his Physitian and wholly trust him renouncing all other Here it is not receiving Health or a Cure that is the proper Condition of the Cure Health and Cure is the end for which the Physitian is Accepted and Trusted but it is himself as a sufficient faithfull Physitian which is the object of that receiving which is the condition of the Cure The like may be shewed in other Relations of a Master and Scholar Prince and Subjects Master and Servants c. Receiving the persons into relation from whom we expect the benefit goes before receiving the benefit it self by them which is usually the remote end and not the object of that first reception which is the condition Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be A receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation as he is offered in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying Faith to be the Receiving of Justification or Righteousness 3. In my judgement it is a meer fancy and delusion to speak of the receiving a righteousness that we may be justified Constitutivè thereby in such a sense as if the righteousness were first to be made ours in order of nature before our Justification and then Justification follow because we are righteous and so these were two things For to receive Righteousness and to receive Justification is one thing Gods justifying us and pardoning our sin and his constituting us righteous and his giving us righteousness is all one thing under severall notions Yet as God giveth 1. Conditionally 2. Actually so man receiveth 1. Receptionè Ethica activâ figuratively called receiving 2. Receptione Physica propriâ passivâ The former goes before Justification but only as a small and secondary part of the condition if properly any it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the main condition The later is nothing at all but Justificari commonly called Passive Justification 4. Christs Satisfaction or Redemption solvend◠pretium and merit cannot be properly received by us For they are not in themselves given to us but as Tropically they may be said to be given to us because the fruit of them is given us It was not to us but to God that Christ gave satisfaction and the price of our Redemption And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christs satisfaction and merit as it doth our Justification thereby procured It is therefore the acknowledging of this Redemption Satisfaction or Merit and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit and not the receiving that Redemption or Satisfaction our selves To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christs Righteousness or of Justification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as satisfier from the justifying act and to exclude from that act his Redemption by bloodshed satisfaction and merit For if it be only the receiving of righteousness that is the justifying act then it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgement of his Satisfaction and Redemption by his blood and so they must say of these as they do of the reception of Christ as Lord that it is the fides quae justificat sed non quà justificans 5. If faith shall be said to be the instrument of Justification eo nomine because it is the receiving of that Righteousness whereby we are justified then it will follow that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ eo nomine because it receiveth him and the instrument of our Adoption eo nomine because it receiveth Adoption and so the same act of faith which entitles us to Justification doth not entitle us to any other blessing nor that act that entitles us to Christ doth entitle us to Justification unless there be several justifying acts but every particular mercy hath a particular act of faith as the instrument of receiving it which is no Scripture doctrine 6. It must be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly is not Christ himself or his righteousness but the species of what is represented as its object And that faiths reception of Christ himself and his righteousness or of right to Christ is but Receptio metaphorica
produce to teach the world that the only justifying act of faith is The Accepting of Justification as merited by Christs blood or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of I can finde no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition then this very doctrine which they have generally received though not in such exact terms aâ— it is taught them I never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinned their worst they still think to be saved because they believe And what is their beleeving why they beleeve that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation to Christs death and Gods mercy This were good if this were not all but if Christ were also received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher But if this were the only justifying act as they usually speak then I should not know how to disprove him that should tell me that all men in the world shall be saved that beleeve the Gospel to be true or at least the far greatest part of the most wicked men For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned and therefore Accept or are Willing of Christ to save them from damnation and I am sure they are Willing to be pardoned as fast as they sin and that is to be justified and therefore must needs be Willing of Christ to pardon them supposing that they beleeve the Gospel to be true What therefore shall I say if a wicked wretch thus argue He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I for I Accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore c Shall I tell him that he dissembleth and is not Willing Why 1. Long may I so tell him before he will beleeve me when he feels that I speak falsly and slander him 2. And I should know that I slander him my self Supposing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Christs blood as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell Shall I give him the common answer the best that ever was given to me that though the only justifying act be the receiving Christ or his Righteousness to justifie us yet this must be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign and a resolution to obey him Perhaps I may so puzzle him for want of Logick or Reason but else how easily may he tell me that this receiving Christ as Lord hath either the nature of a medium ad finem or not If it be no medium the want of it in this case cannot hinder the Justification of that man that is sure he hath the sole justifying act it self For as meer signs or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect so the want of them hinders not the effect where all causes and means are present But if I say that this act of faith is a means to Justification then I must either make it a Cause or a Condition or invent some new medium not yet known But you say Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Ans 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in stead of the Soveraign I say not that the reception of Christs Soveraignty doth â—ustifie those words may have an ill sense but we are justified by receiving Christ as our Soveraign which much differs from the former 2. Christ as Soveraign doth cleanse us both from the guilt and power of sinne by actual Remission or Justification and by Sanctification 3. Suppose you speak true as you do if you mean it only of Meriting our cleansing What is this to our Question But you adde Faith in his blood not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth justifie us Ans This is something to the purpose if it had been proved But will a nude and crude Assertion change mens judgements or should you have expected it A text you cite and therefore it might seem that you thought it some proof of this Rom. 3.24 But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition which who will take for good Exposition The text faith He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood And you adde Not through faith in his Command 1. Sed quo jure nescio Your exclusion is either upon supposition that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only or else it is on some mysterious ground which you should the rather have revealed because it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to discover it without your revelation If the former 1. By what authority do you adde only in your interpretation 2. Will you exclude also his Obedience Resurrection Intercession c When by the obedience of one many are made righteous and Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his Command but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher or either Receiving Christ as Ruler goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands And for the text Rom. 3.24 It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connotâ— both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what ex parte nostri but the former pâ—incipally I will explain my thoughts by a similitude or two Suppose a Rebell be Condemned and lye in prison waiting for Execution and the Kings Son being to raise an Army buyeth this Rebell with all his fellow prisoners from the hand of Justice and sendeth to them this message If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours and take me hereafter for your Prince or General and list your selves under me I will pardon you or give you the pardon which I have purchased and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army Here now if the Question be What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the prisoner It is his ransom as to the Impetration or Preparation and it is his free-Grant which doth it as to the actual Deliverance If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him But if you ask on the offenders part What it is that delivereth him as the condition It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ransomer that is the sole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death Nor is it the Accepting of the
of God or man can be sole instruments but there must be a mutual concurrence of both §. 7. R. B. A Dangerous Doctrine in my Judgement to be so nakedly affirmed No doubt but Justification is a Relative change and it is past Controversie that it is not without the actual concurrence of man for he must perform the Condition on which God will justifie him But that God is not the sole Efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument I durst not have affirmed without proof and much less have undertaken to prove §. 8. Mr Bl. THis must needs be granted unless we will bring in D r Crispes passive recipiency of Christ Christs abode in man without man in spite of man and suppose him to be justified in unbelief §. 8. R. B. THis is very naked asserting Why did you not shew some reason of this ill consequence It s past my reach to see the least 2. Why do you still confound Christs real abode in us by his Spirit with the relation we have upon Justification when even now you affirmed it was a relative work as you call it I pray by the next shew us more clearly how these absurdities follow that doctrine which affirmeth That God is the sole Efficient cause of our Justification but having made mans Belief and Consent the Condition whose nature is to suspend the effect till performed he will not justifie us till we first believe and consent This is my Doctrine plainly §. 9. Mr Bl. ANd faith is disabled from this office in Justification by this Argument If faith be an instrument it is the instrument of God or man c. I Ans It is the instrument of man and though man do not justifie himself yet he concurres as a willing ready Agent with God in it God is a justifier of those that beleeve in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God hath set Christ forth a propitiation through faith Rom. 3.25 §. 9. R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction saying and unsaying my Logick is less then I thought it had been If it be Mans instrument of Justification and yet Man do not justifie himself Then either Man is not Man or an Instrument is not an Instrument or Justifying is not Justifying Had you only affirmed it to be mans act and Gods instrument how absurd soever otherwise yet you might have said Man doth not justifie himself But if it be mans instrument then man is the principal cause in respect of the instrumentall For omne instrumentum est causae principalis instrumentum And can he be the efficient cause and yet not effect Is not that to be a Cause and no Cause In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion nor much stress laid on it if it were true because it s so obscure That man concurres as a ready Agent who doubts but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and Justification Is the performer of the condition of Gratefull consent no willing Agent unless an efficient Cause The text you cite doth not speak of instruments for ought I can finde §. 10. Mr Bl. ANd because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also the instrument of God As some have observed a communication of Titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his Name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwels in our hearts by faith Eph. 3.17 We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Act. 15.17 They believed and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification So on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8.13 §. 10. R. B. IF this be indeed true That it is mans instrument of Justification and Gods both then both God and man are both Causae principales partiales by coordination making up one principal cause This I hope you will not downright affirm I deny it on this reason Every absolute Donor I mean who is absolutely owner of what he gives is the totall cause-efficient-principal of his own Donation But God in justifying is an absolute Donor giving remission and Righteousness Therefore c. 2. Or else God and man must be principal causes one subordinate to the other and each total in his own kinde This must be your meaning by your first words But then which of these is the most principal cause and which the subordinate It is hard for a better wit then mine to know your minde by your words For when you say Because it is mans instrument it is also Gods instrument It may seem that you take it to be mans instrument first or else how can it be therefore Gods instrument because it is mans But yet whether you speak de ordine consequentis vel consequentiae de ordine essendi efficiendi vel de ordine dicendi colligendi I know not However I will not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you take man for the most principal cause and God for the subordinate but contrarily But then you do not only make man the pardoner and justifier of himself but you make him the nearest total cause of it and so it would be as proper to say Man forgives himself as that God forgives him And so faith would be only mans instrument directly as being the nearest cause-principal and Gods instrument remotely As if I hold my pen and you hold my hand the pen is proximè my instrument and remotiùs yours And so God should justifie and pardon man by himself as Gods instrument As if a Judge had committed Treason and the King should give him authority to Judge Pardon and Absolve himself But how much might be said against this To justifie efficienter is actus Rectoris Sed homo non est rector sui ipsius in the sense in hand Therefore he cannot justifie himself Indeed if you had spoke only of the Justification in soro conscientiae you might well have ascribed it to man as the efficient cause but that you speak not of 2. The communication of Titles that you speak of is 1. very rare 2. Uncertain whether at all found in Scripture That Text 1 Cor. 12.12 seemeth rather to leave out the Church as understood then to communicate Christs Name to it q. d. So is Christ and the Church I would advise all friends of mine to take heed that they presume not on this slight ground to communicate Christs Name to the Church in their ordinary speech 3. But who can tell what you mean by a communication of actions Your putting Communication of actions in contradistinction from Communication of Titles makes the proper sense of your words be that Christ doth as really communicate actions themselves as he doth Titles themselves
therefore God made man Or thus All men on earth are sinners I am a man on earth therefore I am a sinner In all these if you seal the major proposition or affirm it true you do indeed though not in terms affirm or seal the conclusion morally The confession that you say I make reacheth no higher But observe that its only morally that I say you may be said to say or seal the conclusion because unquestionable naturals are presupposed in Morals and Legals §. 66. Mr. Bl. HE that Believeth is Justified and shall be saved is his major Proposition This he saith is sealed unquestionably when indeed I have ever thought and yet think that it is not at all sealed Sacraments seal not to the truth of any general Proposition but with particular application as they are dispensed so they seal but they are applyed particularly Take Eat c. This Mr. Baxter seeth pag. 69. and therefore in that absolute universal Proposition he finds a particular Conditional Promise to which he saith God sealeth If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee §. 66. R. B. ALL this is answered sufficiently already Only observe that by shall be saved and I will save thee I mean but shall have or I will give thee present Right to salvation For the continuance of that Right hath more then Faith for its condition §. 67. Mr. Bl. THat it sealeth not to the truth of the minor Proposition But I believe he says is beyond dispute giving in his reasons It should seal then to that which is not written for no scripture saith that I do believe so certainly Sacraments do seal they seal to that which is not directly written they seal with particular application but the man to whom they are applyed hath not his name in scripture written they seal to an individual person upon the Warrants of a general Promise though I do not say that Proposition is sealed yet me thinks this reason is scarce cogent §. 67. R. B. YOu deny not my assertion but argue against the reason of it as before by telling us what you thought so here by affirming the contrary certain you attempt the confutation of mine To your instance I give these two returns 1. It is equivocation when our question is of sealing to a thing as the subjectum obsignatum for to instance in sealing to a person as the finis cui The seal that is to application as an end not to application as the subject sealed 2. But if you respect not the person as the end of application but as the party expressed in the Promise which is sealed then I say If you can prove that the universal Proposition doth not in sense contain the singulars so that this singular If thou believe thou shalt be saved be not in Moral Law sense contained in this universal All that believe shall be saved the Law supposing them all to be men and sinners then I will prove that God doth not properly seal to the singulars But till then I suspend §. 68. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter sayes The great question is whether they seal to the Conclusion as they do to the major Proposition To which he answers No directly and properly it doth not If the Proposition seems directly to prove the Conclusion then that which directly confirms any Proposition in a rightly formed Syllogism confirms the Conculsion If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed or else the Syllogism is ill-framed §. 68. R. B. TThis is too new Doctrine to be received without one word of proof Doth he that sealeth the major of this following Syllogism seal the Conclusion All that truly Receive Christ are the Sons of God and shall be saved Judas did truly receive Christ therefore Judas was the Son of God and shall be saved I think both Premises must be true before the Conclusion will thence be proved true And it is not sealed by God when it is false §. 69. Mr. Bl. REasons are given This Conclusion is nowhere written in Scripture and therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for the confirmation of our Faith To which I say It is written Virtually though not expresly That I shall rise in Judgement is nowhere written yet it is of Faith that I shall rise and when I have concluded Faith in my heart as well as Reason in my Soul knowing my self to be a Believer as I know my self to be a man I may as well conclude that I shall rise to Life as that I shall rise to Judgement §. 69 R. B. 1. WHen you oppose Virtually to Expresly you seem by Virtually to mean in sense though not in terms If so then your Syllogism is tautological But take it in what sense you will in any propriety and I deny that it is Virtually written in Scripture that you or I do Believe or yet that you or I are Justified and shall be saved Yet I confess that some Conclusions may be said to be Interpretativè vel secundum loquutionem moralem in Scripture when but one of the premises is there but that is when the other is presupposed as being as certain but of this more anon where you speak of this subject more largely 2. To your instance I say It is by Faith and natural knowledg mixt that you conclude you shall rise again The Conclusion participateth of both Premises as to the ground of its certainty That it doth sequi is a right gathered Conclusion is known only by Reason and not by Faith that it is true is known partly by Reason and partly by Faith when the Premises belong to both Yet though in strict sense it be thus mixt in our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the Premises and usually from the more notable alwaies from the more Debile Scripture saith All men shall rise Reason saith you are a man Though the Conclusion here parâ—â—â—e of both yet it is most fitly said to be de fide both because Scripture intended each particular man in the Universal and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men and therefore the other part is it that resolveth the doubt and is the notable and more debile part It s I know undoubted with you that Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem Now though Gods Word in it self is most infallible yet in respect of the evidence to us it is generally acknowledged that it is far short of natural principles and objects of sense in so much that men have taken it for granted that the objects of faith are not evident of which I will not now stand to speak what I think but touch it anon Therefore it being more evident that you are a man then it is that all men shall rise it is fittest to say the Conclusion is de fide as the more debile part But can we say so of the present Conclusion in question Have you a fuller evidence that you
THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
Effect are so related that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect Though it may still be the same Thing and have the same Aptitude to produce the Effect even when it is not applied and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cause still 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument except you would arguâ— thus The grant of the Covenant is not an Instrument of justifying unbelievers that never were justified Therefore it is not a full or proper instrument of justifying believers that are justified Or else therefore faith is an instrument as well as the Gospel To your Reader that is no wiser then I these words therefore are at the best but lost labour For I suppose this Argumentation you will not own §. 16. Mr Bl. WHen the Minister is a Minister of condemnation the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death §. 16. R. B. 1. SO it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of Justification Saw you not this when you wrote it §. 17. Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Gospel for Justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred §. 17. R. B. DArkly but dangerouslly spoken Darkly for its possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine quâ homo non est subjectum proximè capax and so I grant the sense dangerously For the words will seem to any impartial Reader to import more specially finding what you say for faiths instrumentality before viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel which if you mean I would for the Truth 's sake and your own that these words had never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause-instrumentall coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate 2. If it were the former that is meant yet were it intollerable 1. Nothing but a superiour cause doth convey efficaciam causandi to another And this must be either 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris 2. Vel in actum To say that mans faith doth either of these to the Gospel-grant is such a doctrine as I will not dare to argue against left you take me thereby to accuse you of being guilty of it 2. Faith cannot as a concause convey any efficacy into the Gospel For a co-ordinate concause doth influere immediatè in ipsum effectum at non in concausae potentiam vel actum 3. If you had only said that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gospel to Justification you had said more then you bring any proof for But let 's see what you bring in stead of proof §. 18. Mr Bl. HEb 4.2 Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it 1 Thes 2.12 13. You received not the Word of God as the word of men but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh in you that believe §. 18. R. B. BUt where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your Cause 1. In the first Text the Apostle speaks of the words profiting in the real change of the soul and our question is of the Relative The Scripture meaneth The word had not that further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie them 2. It s true that the Word did not justifie them but that 's consequential only of the former unprofitableness Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions and then you do something 3. Is here ever a word for the Gospels receiving its efficacy to Justification by faith no nor of its so receiving that real profit of sanctification which is here meant neither It s weak arguing to say The Word profited not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying You cannot but know the sequel would be denied In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this much less to Justification where faith is no efficient For concauses have not influence on each other but both on the effect The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the soul which presupposeth faith for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation and that 's all that the Text saith But may not the absence of faith hinder unless when present it doth effect I am sure in Justification where it is but a condition it may The nature of a condition when the gift is free and full is not to effect the thing but to suspend the efficacy of the instrument till it be performed As if I may use so gross a similitude the clicket of a Cross-bow doth hinder the â—ow from shooting till you stir it but doth not adde any force to it when you do stir it The second Text I know not how you mean to make use of unless you argue thus The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of Justification §. 19. Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much less say that the Word hath such an influx §. 19. R. B. THe Gospel in it self considered without the coordinate or subordinate or superiour causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it Much less should prefer the causality of faith in saying that we may much less give this honour to the Word or say this of the Word then of our own faith Yet the Gospel without the concomitancy of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non But that is no dishonour to the Gospel nor defect of power which faith must supply But the force of the instrument being meerly from the Donors will he willeth
absolutely Given I should easily have granted it for it is Given on condition of Receiving and even a sealed Grant may be uneffectual to Conveyance through the interposition of the Dissent and Rejection of him that should receive But you adde for the confirmation of the major None can miss of that which God Absolutely Granteth and Absolutely sealeth Reply 1. But what is this to your major was there any mention of Absolute Granting This is somewhat a large Addition 2. And what is this to the question between you and me You know and acknowledge that I say It is the Conditional Grant that is Absolutely sealed why then do you dispute against Absolute Granting and Sealing This is loss of time to the best of your Readers and for the worst it may make them think my opinion is clean contrary to my own profession §. 65. Mr. Bl. OR in case the Soul frame any Argumentation I suppose it is to be conceived to this purpose If God give me Christ he will give me Justification and Salvation by Christ but God gives me Christ therefore he will give me Justification and Salvation The major is supposed not sealed the minor is there sealed The Elements being tendred by the Minister in Gods stead and received with my hand I am confirmed that God gives Christ to my Faith And the minor being sealed the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed The proof of any proposition in a Syllogism is in order to the proof of the Conclusion and so the sealing of any proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion which indeed Mr. Baxter grants where he sayes that the Proposition that God sealeth to runs thus If thou do believe I do pardon thee and will save thee Yet several passages in that Discourse are I confess beyond my weak apprehension §. 65. R. B. 1. TO your Argument there needs no more to be said then is said to the former When God hath in one Deed of Gift bestowed on us Christ and Life Remission Justification Adoption c. 1 Joh. 5.10 11 12. Joh. 1.11 12. it must be in case of great ignorance that the person that knows that God giveth him Christ must yet be constrained by after arguings to acknowledge that he giveth him Justification And how this argument tends to explain the nature of Sacramental sealing I neither know nor see any thing here to help me to know If you will suppose such an Argument as this used for Application I would not stick to yield it useful What God doth by his Testament give to all men on condition they will Accept it that he gives to me on condition I will Accept it But he gives Christ and Life in him to all men if they will Accept it therefore to me Or if you will say to all that hear the Gospel Though the use of such an Argument is more for lively Application then confirmation of the Truth of the Grant 2. Your supposition that your minor is sealed and not your major hath enough said to it 3. The Sacraments may confirme your faith in Christ as given to you otherwise then by sealing viz. as they are signs for Remembrance Excitation to sense and lively apprehensions of Gods Donation and as they are signs instrumental in sole Conveyance of the benefit Given as a twig and a turfe and a Key in giving possession and the words and actions of matrimonial solemnization or Contract 4. It is new Logick to my understanding that the minor being sealed the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed The minor of many an Argument may be true and the conclusion false And therefore when the case so falls out that both minor and conclusion are true or sealed it is not eo nomine because the minor is true that the Conclusion is so or is sealed eo nomine because the minor is so but because both major and minor are so and not then neither but upon supposition that the Syllogism be sound 5. But to prove this you say the proof of any Proposition in a Syllogism is in order to the proof of the Conclusion and so the sealing of any Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion Reply The first is true 1. But what is this to the matter Is it all one to prove it and to be in order to prove it to seal it and to be in order to the sealing of it Is the Conclusion proved on the proof of one Proposition No therefore according to your own arguing neither is it sealed by the sealing of one Proposition 2. That the sealing of one Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion I deny 1. It may be a single Proposition that is sealed not standing as part of a Syllogism as this I Give Christ and Life in him to you all that will Accept him 2. If it be supposed part of a Syllogism it is enough sometime that the Conclusion be cleared or confirmed or we enabled igfallibly to gather it by the sealing of one Proposition but it is not necessary that it be the very sealing of the Conclusion to which the sealing of that Ptoposition doth tend When a Landlord hath sealed a Lease to his Tenant he hath sealed this Proposition If A. B. well and truly pay such Rents he shall quietly enjoy such Lands suppose the minor to be But A. B. doth or will well and truly pay such Rents suppose this minor Proposition either false or uncertain will you say then that the sealing of the major was in order to the sealing of the Conclusion No the Conclusion is Absolute therefore A. B. shall enjoy such Lands but the Proposition sealed is Conditional It is enough that it secure his Right if he pay his Rent and that it enable him infallibly so to conclude while he performs the conditions though it tend not at all to seal the Conclusion We seldom use seals to Syllogisms and not to Conclusions as such or eo noimne because a major or minor Proposition is proved though the thing sealed may be to other uses made part of a Syllogism Yet I grant that where the Syllogism is such as that one of the Propositions doth morally contain the Conclusion in sense though not in terms there the conclusion is sealed when that one Proposition is sealed because it is the sense and not meer terms that are sealed and undoubted naturals are presupposed in moralitie and therefore the sealing of one is the sealing of both For example if you argue either from a Synonimal term or from the thing as Defined to the thing as named or from the Genus to the Species or from the Species to the Individual thus succinum corroborat cerebrum At Ambarum vel electrum est succinum therefore Ambarum vel electrum corroborat cerebrum or thus Privatio visus est naturae malum Caecitas est Privatio visus therefore Caecitas est naturae malum Or thus God made every creature Man is a creature
Doctrine of the Protestants for a Confutation of all you may easily conjecture 4. This Conclusion many confess sealed If thou A. B. do believe thou shalt be saved but not this Conclusion Thou A. B shalt be saved 5. I have shewed you that it is one thing to seal to the Promise for form and matter and another thing to seal to the persons Right to the thing promised This actual Right is but the end which is not obtained till Delivered or offered Reception and actual Collation go before and then is not the subjectum obsignatum Your argument I conceive doth nothing for your cause yea is wholly for mine Your Conclusion is therefore this the Sacrament sealeth what is this why Forgiveness of sins Conditionally and this to all in Covenant Here 1. you seem to yield that it is not the Absolute but Conditional Promise which is sealed which is the main thing that I stood on 2. You seem to apply the word Conditionally to forgiveness and n◠to sealing and so to confess that the sealing is actual and if actual then not meerly conditional For to say I conditionally seal is to say It shall be no seal till the performance of the Condition But you seem to confess it a seal before of Conditional forgiveness 3. You seem to acknowledge the general Promise sealed though with application to particular persons §. 73. Mr. Bl. ANd as it is an error to hold that to believe my sins are forgiven is of the nature or essence of Faith as though none did believe but those that had attained such assurance true Faith hath assurance in pursuit only sometimes and not alwaies in possession So on the other hand it is a mistake to say that it is no work of Faith The Apostle calls it the full assurance of Faith Heb. 10.22 and describeth Faith to be the substance of things hoped for Faith realizeth salvation which we have in hope to the Soul A Description of Faith saith Dr. Amesius out of a Schoolman by one of the most eminent acts that it produceth therefore I take that to be a good answer that is here charged with error that when it is written He that Believeth is Justified it is equivalent as though it were such or such a man is Justified in case with assured grounds and infallible Demonstrations he can make it good to his own self that he believeth §. 73. R. B. 1. IF assurance be not of the nature or Essence of Faith then it is not Faith for nothing is Faith but what is of the nature and Essence of Faith But according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not of the nature or Essence of Faith for he saith it s an error to hold it therefore according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not Faith But I suspect by the following words that by nature and essence he means the minimum quod sic 2. That which is but either Pursued or Possessed by Faith is not Faith it self for nothing is the Pursuer and Pursued the Possessor and Possessed as to the same part nor will Mr. Bl. I conjecture say that a less degree of Faith possesseth a greater but according to Mr. Bl. assurance is but pursued or possessed by Faith therefore is not Faith 3. I know none that denyeth Assurance to be a Work of Faith which Mr. Bl. here saith is a mistake to say Love and Obedience are wroks of Faith but not Faith it self 4. I must have better proof before I can believe that it is Assurance of our own sinceritie or actual Justification which the Apostle calls The full assurance of Faith Heb. 10.22 Though how far this may concurr I now enquire not 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sinceritie in the description of Faith Heb. 11.1 Unless you mean that hope is part of Faith and assurance the same with hope both which need more proof Hope may be without assurance and when it is joyned with it yet it is not the same thing Only such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of Hope 6. It s true that Faith may be said as you speak to Realize salvation to the Soul that is when the Soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a Glory and Salvation to be expected and enjoyed by Believers as Christ hath promised here Faith apprehendeth it as Real or Certain and so resolves the doubt But when the doubt is only whether I be a true Believer Faith resolves it not and when the doubt is whether this certain Glory and Salvation shall be mine Faith only cooperateth to the resolve of it by affording us one of the Propositions but not both and not wholly the Conclusion 7. I am of Dr. Ames minde that it is one of Faiths most eminent acts by which it is there described But so think not they that tell us that is none of the Instrumental Justifying act which is there described 8. This which you took to be a good answer is that great mistake which hath so hardned the Papists against us and were it not for this point I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest about Conditional sealing as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer when you confine it to those only that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they Believe i. e. savingly I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by Assured grounds c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative 10. Demonstrations may be infallible and yet not known to be such to the person but I suppose that by the word Demonstration you intend that the partie discerns it to be an infallible Demonstration which sure intimates a very high kinde of certainty 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the major is equivalent to the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved though I should acknowledge that the Conclusion may be said to be de fide in that the Major hath the predominant Interest in the Conclusion if so be that the man have better evidence of his sinceritie then of the Truth of the Promise §. 74. Mr. Bl. BVt this is said to be a gross mistake and thus proved as though the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the Conclusion But here being in our Syllogism both a Major and a Minor there is added further or as if the Conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda a proper object of Faith when but one of the Propositions is of Faith the other of sense and knowledge Here the Major is confest to be of Faith but the Minor I sincerely Believe is affirmed to be known by inward sense and self-reflexion Here I must enter my dissent that a Conclusion may be Credenda an object of Faith when but one of the Propositions is of Faith and
comparison of that which is more evident in nature The Premises are these All mâ—n shall rise again I am a man therefore I shall rise again supposing we speâ—k of men that dye If the Major which is de fide were as evident as the Minor which is not the Conclusion would be more evident then it is and if neither were de fide but both known naturally as the Minor is the Conclusion would not be de fide but would be more evident This I speak that you may not think that I deny the Certainty Evidence or Necessity of every Conclusion which I deny to be de fide either purâ—ly or by prevalent participation 3. For the Papists though ofttimes they take the term de fide as you and I do for that which is by supernatural Revelation Divine yet sometimes they take it for any point which is necessary to salvation to be held without respect to the supernaturality of the Revelation How Fisher used it I know not 4. I think your Conclusion that Christ hath a true body is purely de fide and may be proved by meer Scripture Testimony without your medium 5. The advantage that you say the new Crew would have upon denyal of the use of Maximes of known reason I know not who gives them except Veronius and his followers against whom its long since I read and consented to Vedelius in the main But once again and once for all let me tell you that if the other of your Premises be less evident or proveable then the very Word of God and be more to be doubted of then your Conclusion is not de fide For nothing that is truly de fide is less evident then the truth of Gods Word and that part of the word in particular But yet though in such a case we tell them that the Conclusion is not de fide yet it follows not that it is untrue yea or not evident nor do we therefore deny the use of Reasoning from mediums of lower evidence then Scripture much less of clearer evidence But many consequences may be true and yet not de fide when one of the Premises is de fide Note also for the understanding of what I have said concerning the evidence of the objects of Faith that whereas we do usually so compare Science Opinion and Divine Faith as to conclude that Science is an assent both firme certain and evident Divine Faith is an assent fiâ—me and certain but not evident Opinion is sometime firme but never certain or evident I do not speak in the language of these Divines and Philosophers when I ascribe an Evidence to Divine Faith But then you must understand that the difference is not as I conceive de re but de nomine For I take not the term evident in so restrained a sense as they do As to instance in Rob. Baronius that second Camerâ— who saith Assensus evidens est cum quis per se hoc est vi sui sensus aut rationis absque alterius informatione testificatione percipit eam propositionem cui assentitur esse veram and he makes that an inevident Assent cum quis Assentitur propositioni non quod sensus aut solida ratio eam veram esse Demonstret sed vel quod levis inefficax ratio illud suadeat vel quod alius testetur eam esse veram Philos Theol. an p. 148. But I think the term evident is here too much restrained and that with great inconvenience and some wrong to the Christian Faith I take that to be properly evident which is to the understanding truly Apparent or Discernable which hath divers degrees And the Negative addition that it must be absque alterius testificatione is not only superfluous but unsound And may appear even from the Authors words 1. where he opposeth these two in describing inevident Assent non quod sensus aut solida Ratio eam veram esse demonstret and sed quod alius testetur eam esse veram Where he grants that whatsoever solid reason demonstrateth to be true that is evident Now I say that he should not have opposed all Testimony to this For solid reason doth demonstrate Gods Testimony to be true and this to be his Testimony 2. He ascribeth Certainty to Divine Faith which he describeth to be an Assent qui nititur certo aliquo aut solido fundamento non vero levi aut fallaci ratione and he noteth diligently that ad certitudinem assensus requiri ut fundamentum quo mens nititur dum assensum praebet non solum ut sit in se certum sed etiam ut assentienti tale videatur nisi enim ille sciat rationem qua nititur esse certam ejus assensus nullo modo erit certus stabilis Now he confesseth that the object of Science must be evident and here he saith nisi sciaâ— rationem esse certam If he must scire certitudinem then he must scire evidenâ—iam if all objects of science are evident And what is it to know but to discern or understand a discernable cognoscible or evident object How then can we scire certitudinem nisi sciendo aliquam Certitudinis Evidentiam I conceive therefore that it is true proper evidence which is allowed to Divine Faith under this name of Certainty even by them that say it is not evident I know what a stir the School-men make about this point The Question is not only de Evidentia sidei but de Evidenti Theologie also which they distinguish from fides as habitus primorum principiâ—rum scientia Conclusionum are distinct Though the most of the School-men go the other way yet some as Henricus Quodlib 12. q. 2. and Beza Archiepisc Hispalens qu. 1. prolog art 3. not 3.4 do affirm our Theology to have Evidence Aquinas and his followers maintain it to be a Science but that is because they suppose it to be subalternate to the Science of God and the Gloryfied And therefore Aquin. 22. qu. 1. art 5. c. denyeth those things to be scita quae communiter simpliciter sâ—b fide câ—ntinentur and that because omnis scientia habetur per aliqua principia per se nota per consequens visa But I think that per consequens visa will not hold without exceptions and limitations and I suppose it to be ex principiis per se notis originally Yet in the foregoing Article Aquinas grants that though quae subsunt fidei Considerata in speciali non possunt esse simul visa Credita tamen in generali sub communi ratione Credibilis sic visa sunt ab eo qui Credit Non enim Crederet nisi videret ea esse Credenda vel propter Evidentiam signorum vel propter aliquid hujusmodi And I easily confess that matters of meer supernatural Revelation are not in themselves evident nor ab Evidentia ipsius rei must we prove it But that we have Evidence of the Veritie of the Conclusions by the
But such is the Doctrine of Faith therefore I know some Divines to the no small wrong of the Christian Faith say None can really believe it but the Regenerate But the Jews believe the supernatural Revelations of the Old Testament and the Divels and many a thousand wicked men believe both old and new experience tells us so Christ tells us so that many believe who fall away in persecution James tells such men that they do well in believing but the Divel doth so too else men could not reject or persecute the known Truth To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits infunduntur ad mâ—dum acquisitorum and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary yet that makes not other causes unnecessary Rada who concludes that Theologia nostra non est evidens gives but these two poor reasons and I should as soon look for strong ones from him as almost any man of his Religion or party 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia sed Condita therefore nec Conclusiones c. I deny the Antecedent which he proves nor Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei and that is evident so is the Revelation as is said 2. He saith Si conclusiones nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes possemus convincere Infideles ut fidem nostram susciperent quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum I answer 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction as a Will to understand and divers other things which the wicked want As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects but for want of good eyes that a blinde man seeth not so it is here 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion yea the Divels themselves believe And whereas he adds Pauls words 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith not by sight it speaks not of Rational Evidence but of sensitive and that we confess is wanting Faith is the Evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 Were it not for digressing too far I would examine the 9. Quest Mater 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate and shew how ill he answers the nine Arguments which he undertakes to answer and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis And I should shew that Faith is a kinde of Science or if we will distinguish it from Science it must not be so widely as is usual nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup will without any help see the weakness of his answers and how he seemed to stagger himself Yet let me add this caution or two 1. I do not mean that every man who hath true Faith doth discern the great and chiefest Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine of Faith 2. Where there is the same Evidence in the thing there may be such different apprehensions of it through the diversity of Intellectual capacities and preparations as that one may have a firme Belief and certain and another but a probable opinion and another none at all 3. Though I take the Evidence of the Doctrine of Faith to be as full as I have mentioned yet not so obvious and easily discerned as sensitive evidence and therefore as one cause there are fewer believe 4. Also the distance of the objects of Faith makes them work less on the affections and the presence and other advantages of sensual Objects for a facile moving the Spirits makes them carrie men away so potently by making greater Commotions in the passions so that no wonder if sense do prevail with most I confess also that men have need of good acquaintance with Antiquity and other History and the Seal of the Church in most parts of the world to see the strong Evidence that there is of the Infallible Tradition of the Scriptures down to us and to some obscure men this may be inevident as it may be to one brought up in a secret Cloister whether ever we had a King or Parliament or Laws in England But the thing is not therefore inevident to the industrious No though it depend on that verity of Report which as proceeding from each particular person is contingent seeing there is Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Circumstances of these Contingent reports And as Rada when he concludes boldly that Cognitio Dei respectu Contingentium non est proprie scientia c. yet seems to grant that God may scire Contingentia uâ— necessaria si non ut Contingentia so it may be said in our present Case the same Reports which are Contingent are yet in other respects of Evident Verity and so we know them But I finde I have been drawn beyond my intent to digress far on this point but it is because it tends to clear the main point in question To return therefore to Mr. Blake I do not know the meaning of his next words where he saith that This Argument Well followed would put me to a great loss in some of my Arguments for Scripture c. Doth he think that I argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures from themselves alone as the Testifier thereof to our Faith or that I take it to be meerly or primarily de fide that Scripture is Gods Revelation when I have professedly published the contrary before those Arguments where I have also added these words of Mr. Rich. Hooker wherewith I will conclude this Section Truly it is not a thing impossible nor greatly hard even by such kinde of proofs so to manifest and clear that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principles such as all men acknowledge to be true Again Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation but it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred Again These things we believe knowing by Reason that Scripture is the Word of God Again It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield it any other Assent then such as doth answer the Evidence Again How bold and confident soever we may be in words when it comes to the tryal such as the Evidence is which the Truth hath such is the Assent nor can it be stronger if grounded as it should be so far Mr. Hooker cited once more Eccles pol. p. 102 103 c. §. 76. Mr. Bl. TO winde up all though there be some difference in the way between me and my learned friend yet there is little in the thing it self Mr. Baxter saies that the Proposition to which God sealeth runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee The soul must assume the Minor But
these on you as not doubting but it is an oversight §. 78. Mr. Bl. WHen Caleb had engaged himself He that smiteth Kiriath-Sepher and taketh it to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife Othniel the Son of Kenaz taking it there was an absolute tye upon him for performance Josh 15 16 17. When Saul promised his Daughter to David on this condition that he would bring him an hundred of the foreskins of the Philistins 1 Sam. 18.25 David having made it good with advantage now there is an absolute tye upon him §. 78. R B THis is nothing but what is granted I yield that God is not as it were obliged till men performe the Condition But the Question is whether he Absolutely sealeth before and not whether that Seal oblige before § 79. Mr. Bl. EVen the Arminians Conditional incompleate Election upon Condition of Faith and perseverance they confess is absolute and compleat upon supposal of Faith and perseverance This I take to be Mr. Baxters meaning that upon supposal of Faith it Absolutely sealeth which I willingly grant but it is administred to many who never put in that Condition nor come up to the terms of God that believing they may be saved and so in our sense it sealeth Conditionally §. 79. R. B. 1. I Have better expressed my own meaning It is pitty that the Reader should be troubled with so much about so low a question which of us two doth best express our meaning but that I hope he may gather some things more useful on the by In your sense if it be according to your terms God doth not actually Seal at all to any but the Godly which is my maine Argument against you A Conditional seal is not a seal till the Condition be performed §. 80. Mr. Bl. ANd I can make nothing else of Mr. Tombes his Aptitudinal and Actual seal but that the Sacrament hath an Aptitude to seal in an Absolute way to all that communicate it doth Actually seal to Believers and Penitent ones §. 80. R. B. 1. I Perceive Mr. Tombes and you are more of a minde then I was aware of 2. Sealing of must not be confounded with sealing to as respecting the end nor the next end which is Essential to the Seal as the Terminus to the Relation with more separable ends It is in regard of the first only that I spake against Mr. Tombes and affirmed it to be Actual and not only Aptitudinal but not in regard of the Obligation as we may speak on God or the actual conveyance of Right which follow the condition which I desire Mr. Tombes to take notice of according to my foregoing explication if he mean to Reply to that §. 81. Mr. Bl. NEither let any think that here I seek a starting hole to recede from any thing that heretofore I have published on this subject In my answer to Mr. Tombes pag. 99. I explain my self no otherwise having quoted Dr. Ames and Mr. Rutherford in the words now recited I there add The Conditional seal of the Sacraments is made Absolute by our putting in the Condition of believing c. In case my answer had been in Mr. Baxters hand when his Appendix came out as he saies it was not that he might have seen how I explained my self I suppose he would have seen that in the result of the whole I little differ from him so that I can scarce see that when the matter is brought home that I have any adversary §. 81. R. B. 1. IT is so rare a thing for men to manifest so much ingenuity and self denyal and impartial love to the Truth as freely to recant what they have once asserted when they finde it a mistake that if this had been your case I would not have been one that should have blamed you for it or charged you with unconstancy or levity To err is common to all men but freely to recant it is not so I never write but with a supposition that I shall manifest the weakness of my Intellect and do that which needs reformation 2. I did not so much as pretend you to be my Adversary I did defend you and not argue against you and therefore you have little need to perswade me to have lower thoughts of our differences then I did express or that you and I were no adversaries But though I make light of our seeming difference about sealing I must intreat you to remember that I not only maintain my former Assertion that the Conclusion I A. B. am Justified is not de fide but that I account it a matter of far greater moment It hath been too common Doctrine among the most renowned Divines that it is not only de fide but every mans duty also yea a part of the Creed and so a fundamental for to Believe that our sins are remitted for so they expound the Article of Remission of sins I will not name the Authors because I honor them and would not seem to disparage them and the Learned know them already yea they earnestly press men to Believe the pardon of their own sins in particular and tell them that they have but the Faith of Devils else By which dangerous Doctrine 1. most men are perswaded to believe a falshood for most are not forgiven 2. The careless world is driven on faster to presumption to which they are so prone of themselves 3. Painful Ministers are hindred and their labors frustrated whose business is first to break mens false hopes and peace which they finde so hard a work that they need not resistance The ungodly that I deal with are so confident that their sin is forgiven and God will not damn them for it that all that I can say is too little to shake their confidence which is the nurse of their sin 4. Gods word yea the Articles of our Creed must be abused to do Satan this service and mens Souls this wrong All the world cannot finde so strong a prop to the Kingdom of the Devil nor so powerful an encouragement to presumption or any sin as mistaken Scripture either misinterpreted or misapplyed 5. When wicked men that have but the Faith of Devils are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particular sins and this made to be de fide God is dishonored with the charge of such untruths as if falshoods were de fide and God commanded men to believe them And for the Godly themselves it hath in a lower degree many of the same inconveniences If there be any one that hath as good Evidence of his soundness in Faith Love and Repentance as that the Word of God is true and all sound Believers are Justified what is such a man to many a thousand that have no such Evidence yea and for that man it is impossible that his Evidence should be as constant as Scripture Evidence though it were as full Scripture Evidence varieth not as the Evidence of Grace doth in our mutable unconstant
the other of sense and knowledge yea that it will hold in matters of Faith both fundamental and superstructive §. 74. R. B. 1. IT was not this according to your limitations that was said to be a gross mistake but as applyed to ordinary Believers though my reasons make against both 2. You deal more easily to your self then fairly with me in your entred Dissent 1. I said meerly Credenda as confessing it is partly of Faith and partly of knowledge as the Premises are and you leave out meerly and put in Crendenda alone as if I denyed it to participate of Faith 2. I denyed it therefore to be a proper object of Faith that is a meer Credendum or Divine Testimony acknowledging that it may be participative and partially and less properly called an Object of Faith and you leave out properly and only affirm it an Object of Faith of what sort soever in general 3. I have answered this sufficiently in telling you my opinion i. e. The Conclusion still partakes of the nature of both Premises and therefore when one is de fide and the other naturaliter revelatum vel cognitum there the Conclusion is not purely either supernatural or natural de fide or ex cognitione naturali but mixt of both That it s truly a Conclusion following those Premises is known only by Rational discourse and is not de fide but that it is a true Proposition is known partly naturally partly by supernatural Revelation which is that we mean when we say it is de fide But because it is fittest in our common speech to give this Conclusion a simple and not a compound Denomination for brevitie sake therefore we may well denominate it from one of the Propositions and that must alwaies be a parte debiliore And therefore when it is principia naturaliter nota that make one proposition or sensible things or what ever that is more evident then the truth of the Proposition which is of Divine Testimony there it is fittest to say The Conclusion is de fide or of supernatural Revelation As when the one Proposition is that there is a God or I am a man or God is Great or Good or True But when the other Proposition is less evident then that which is of Divine Revelation then it is fittest to say that the Conclusion is such as that Proposition is and not properly de fide For the Conclusion being the joynt issue of both Premises as its parents or true Causes it cannot be more noble then the more ignoble of them This explication of my opinion is it that I referr you to as the substance of my answer to all that follows §. 75. Mr. Bl. WHen Fisher the Jesuite told Dr. Featley that it was solid Divinity that a Conclusion de fide must necessarily by inferred out of two Propositions de fide Dr. Goad being present as Dr. Featleys Assistant interposed in these words I will maintain the contrary against you or any other That a Conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise evidently and infallibly true by the light of Reason or experience giving instance in this Conclusion Christus est risibilis which he said and truly was de fide though both Propositions whence it is inferred be not de fide Omnis homo est risibilis is not a Proposition de fide or supernaturally revealed in Scripture yet thence the Conclusion follows in this Syllogism Omnis homoest risibilis Christus est homo therefore Christus est râ—sibilis which is a Conclusion de fide affirming that Melchior Canus had judiciously handled and proved this tenent which he said he could otherwise demonstrate to be infallible To whom Dr. Featley assents second Daies dispute pag. 85. It were casie to frame many such Syllogisms If an Heretick should affirm that Christ had only a phantastick body in appearance only how would you prove the contrary but with this Syllogism He that is truly man hath a true body and not a phantastick body only This is a Position in reason Christ is truly a man this is a Position de fide in Scripture whence follows the Conclusion de fide that Christ hath not a phantastick body If one should deny that Christ had a reasonable soul affirming that his body was informed by the Dietie instead of a Soul must it not be thus proved Every true man hath a reasonable Soul Christ is a true man and therefore Christ hath a reasonable Soul The Citie that ruleth over the Nations of the earth and is seated on seven hills is the seat of the Beast This is a Scripture Proposition But that Rome then ruled over the Nations of the Earth and was seated on 7 hills we know by History and Geography Whence the Conclusion follows that Rome is the seat of the Beast Abundance of these may be framed where the Proposition opposite to the Conclusion is either an Heresie or at least an error in Faith The Conclusion is of Faith Disputing against the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation to hold up the Orthodox Faith we are necessitated to make use of maximes of known reason If they were denyed us the new Crew now start up that deny all consequences from Scripture and will have none but Scripture words had here a notable advantage This Argument well followed would put Mr. Baxter himself to a great loss in some of his Arguments for which yet I give him thanks to prove that the Scripture is the word of God §. 75. R. B. THis is fully answered before even in my last Section 1. Dr. Goâ—d saith but the same that I say only I distinguish 1. Between that which is purely de fide and that which is only denominated de fide as the more debile of the Premises In the latter sense the Doctors conclusions are de fide in the former not 2. When a Conclusion is denyed to be de fide it may be meant either as a Diminution of its evidence or as magnifying its evidence above that which is purely de fide or as equaling it thereto When I say this Conclusion is not de fide A. B. is Justified and shall be saved I speak it by way of Diminution of its evidence and authority And I confidently speak it and doubt not to maintain it But when I deny this Conclusion to be simply or purely de fide I R. B. shall rise again I distinguish nothing of the evidence or necessity of it And when I thus argue Omne quod sentit ratiocinatur est Animal Ego R. B. sentio ratiocinor therefore ego sum Animal though I say that here the Conclusion is not de fide yet I intend thereby to extoll it for evidence above that which is de fide And when I affirm this Conclusion to be de fide I R. B. shall rise again as denominated à parte debiliore I do speak it in Diminution of its evidence in