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
that Conclusion to be de fide § 75. pag. 133 That Divine Faith hath Evidence as well as Certainty Rob. Baronius and Rada's words to the contrary examined § 75. pag. 134 The difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain â—ogent Argument added to prove that the Conclusion fore-mentioned is not sealed § 76. pag. 139 The possibility but vanity of Conditional sealing § 77. pag. 140 More of Mr. Bl's Reasons answered § 78 to 81. pag. 141 The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are Justified and shall be saved § 81. pag. 142 In what sense the Covenant commandeth perfect obedience § 82. pag. 144 Mr. Bl's Reasons examined concerning the Covenants commanding perfection § 82 to 91. pag. 144 How far true believers are Covenant-breakers § 84. pag. 148 The Covenant is Gods Law § 91. pag. 152 The Conclusion Apologetical against the charge of singularity § 92. pag. 152 The Prologue MY Reverend and dearly beloved Brother I remember that when I met you last at Shrewsbury you told me that you had sent to the Presse a Treatise of the Covenants and desired me not to be offended if you published in it some things against my Judgement Your Treatise is since come to my hands and upon a brief perusall of some part of it I am bold to let you know this much of my thoughts 1. That I very much value and honour your Learned Labours and had I been Mr Vines or Mr Fisher I might rather have given in some respects a higher commendations of your Book And especially I love it for its sound discoveries of the Vanity of the Antinomians 2. So farre am I from being offended at your Writing against my Writings that as I have oft said concerning Mr Owen since I saw his Book against me even so do I by you I never honoured you so much though much nor loved you so dearly though dearly before as since for I see more of your worth then I saw before For where I erre why should I be offended with any brother for loving Gods Truth and mens souls above my Errours or any seeming Reputation of mine that may be ingaged in them and for seeking to cure the hurt that I have done God forbid that I should seek to maintain a Reputation obtained by or held in an opposition to the Truth I take all my Errors in Theology even in the highest revealed points participaliter to be my sinnes but especially my divulged Errors And I take him for my best friend that is the greatest enemy to my sins And where I erre not I have little cause for my own sake to be offended at your opposition For as you are pleased to honour me too highly both in your Epithetes and tender dealing yea in being at so much pains with any thing of mine and in stooping to a publick opposition of that which you might have thought more worthy of your contempt so I know you did it in a zeal for God and Truth and you thought all was Error that you opposed so that in the general we fight under one Master and for one Cause and against one Enemy You are for Christ 1. For Truth and against Errors so farre as you know it and so am I. I know you wrote not against Me but against my Errors reall or supposed And truly though I would not be shamelesse or impenitent nor go so far as Seneca to say we should not object a common fault to singular persons Vid. Cor. de Irâ l. 3. c. 26. p. mihi 452. no more then to reproach a Blackmore with his colour yet I see so much by the most Learned and Judicious to assure me that humanum est errare and that we know but in part that I take it for no more dishonour to have the world know that I erre then for them to know that I am one of their Brethren a son of Adam and not yet arrived at that blessed state where that which is childish shall cease and all that is imperfect shall be done away Only if my Errors be greater then ordinary I must be humbled more then ordinary as knowing that my sin is the cause that I have no greater illumination of the Spirit I have truly published to the world my indignation against the proud indignation of those men that account him their enemy that shall publiquely contradict them 2. Yet must I needs tell you that in the points which you contradict I finde no great alteration upon my understanding by your Writings whether it be from the want of evidence of truth in your Confutation or through the dulnesse of my Apprehension I hope I shall better be able to judge when I have heard from you next I think I may safely say It is not from an unwillingness to know the Truth And one further difference there is in our Judgements For my Judgement is that it is not so convenient nor safe a way to publish suddenly a reply to your opposition as to tell you my thoughts privately seeing we live so near and to bring the Points in difference by friendly collations to as narrow a compass as we can and make as clear a discovery of each others meanings as may be and then by joynt consent to tell the world our several Judgements and our Reasons as lovers of the Truth and of each other that so others may have the benefit of our friendly Collations and Enquiries and may be thereby advantaged for the more facile discovery of the Truth Truly I would have all such Controversies so handled that all the vain altercations might lye in the dust in our studies and that which is published might be in one Volume friendly subscribed by both parties In this I perceive by your practise your Judgement differs from mine and that you rather judge it fittest to speak first by the Presse that the world may hear us I crave your acceptance of these Papers rather in this private way and that you will signifie to me in what way I shall expect your return wherein I think it fitter you please your self then me I shall faithfully give you an account of the effect of your Arguments on my weak understanding but not in the order as they lye in your Book but I will begin with those Points which I judge to be of greatest moment §. 1. Mr Blake Treat of Covenants pag. 79. IT is also true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord as well as a Saviour But it is the Acceptation of him as a Saviour not as a Lord that Justifies Christ Rules his People as a King Teacheth them as a Prophet but makes Atonement for them only as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his blood for Remission of sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the blood of Christ the command of Christ the doctrine of Christ but as it lies and fastens on his blood so it Justifies
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
that it shall then and not till then efficere when the condition is performed I appeal to all the Divines Lawyers and Logicians in the world when the thing to be conveyed is but Debitum vel jus ad rem and the effect is but a Transcendental relation as debitum is Is not the Voluntas constituentis vel Donantis the only principal proper efficient And is not the sigâ—um voluntatis constituens the properest instrument that the wit of man can imagine Is not the Testament of a man the most strict and proper instrument of conveying right of the Legacy to the Legatary Is not a Covenant Contract Deed of gift the most proper instrumental efficient cause of the duness of the thing given or conveyed It is not only a Law term but a term of the strictest Logick to call these a mans instrument for conveyance Is not a praemiant or priviledging law in the most strict and proper sense the Legislators instrument effecting the debitum praemii vel privelegii It is evident that the fullest definition of an instrumental efficient cause doth agree to these as far as the nature of the effect Relatio debiti vel juris will admit of full or proper efficiency For these instruments are the very fundamenta proxima of these relations Can you prove the like yea and more of faith and will not But I pray once more â—emember that it is not the effecting of a Physical change but a relative the conveying of Right that we are speaking of so full an instrument is each of thâ—se that the very name of the effect is oft given to them So a pardoning instrument is called A pardon the instrument of donation is called A deed of gift The Law is said praemiare punire quia constituit debitum premii paenae §. 20. Mr Bl. PEmble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working only per modum obâ—ecti as it contains a declaration of the Divine Will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known beleeved and practised §. 20. R. B. Mr Pemble speaks of the Word effecting or as the instrument of sanctification We speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying What 's that to this 2. When did Mr Pemble prove that the Word or other objects are passive instruments You know he goes against the stream of Philosophers and then his reasons must sway more then his authority And his reason which you say he gives is but this It cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will c. But I will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates I have read many that say that objectum operatur in genere causae finalis and others that say it worketh in genere causae efficientis some saying it effecteth Physically others that it effecteth morally others that objectum operatur naturaliter at prâ—ponens objectum est tantum causa moralis others that it is causa efficiens objectiva protatarctiâ—a respectu earum operationum qua ab illa immediate exercentur sed causa finalis respectu aliorum operationum quae ab illa sunt priorum interventu as Burgersâ—is speaks But I remember none that call it Instrumentum passivum yea not only the object but declaration and all Instrumentum passivum For my part I am of Scotuâ— minde that Objectum operatur efficienter per mâ—dum naturae in intellectum sed moraliter tantum in voluntatem irresistibly and necessitatingly on the intellect considering it as an intellect and not so far as it is sub imperio voluntatis ita ejus operationes sunt participativè voluntariae but on the will not so And I am sure this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerfull pulling down strong holds sharp dividing c. The seed of God by which we are begotten lively the Word of life saving mens souls quickning sanctifying cleansing c. But what 's all this to Justification §. 21. Mr Bl. SO that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckerman 's Incus instrumentum fabricationis and his scamnum mensa accubitus terra ambulationis yet it followeth not as is thence inferred that there is no passive instrument Here is an instrument that is passive §. 21. R. B. THese words import an intimation that I said all these were active instruments which should not have been done when I manifested that I took some of them for no instruments 2. These words intimate as if I concluded hence if not only hence that there are no passive instruments which should not be when I only brought in these as Objections to be answered and argued with Schiblâ—r against passive instruments thus Every instrument is an efficient cause All efficiency is by action Therefore every instrument is active If you chose rather as ordinarily you do to silence my reasons then answer them yet you should not have intimated as if I had given you none or but such as I gave not 3. I look for your proof of a passive instrument and not to say Here is an instrument that is passive as if you were demonstrating it to my eyes when you bring nothing but singular Mr. Pembles singular word And I doubt whether you beleeve him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And indeed so it must or not at all for pati non est operari and therefore Pemble denieth it to cooperate and to operate Be not offended if I doubt whether you beleeve this your self in your Studies Preaching Writing and Exhortations 4. I doubt not but that which doth only realiter pati may be called an instrument moraliter vel reputative but then its reputative instrumentality consisteth in a reputative activity 5. And I doubt not but the dispositio materiae may by a borrowed speech be called instrumentum recipiendi and so instrumentum passivum i. e. Passionis i. e. Receptionis but all this is nothing to the business 6. If it were proved that there were a hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument signifieth an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither Really nor Reputatively is it such §. 22. Mr Bl. THat which is produced by an efficient or principall agent to the producing of an effect and receives activity and power from some other is a passive instrument and not active §. 22. R. B. STranger yet 1. It s